D&D 5E Final playtest packet due in mid September.

[Majoru Oakheart]

I think we're just talking about the finer points of the word "simulate". (I know I am. ) "I could see it happening" is not exactly a strong endorsement for a simulator.

I don't believe it to be a "simulator" of the stories, but a simulator of the worlds/people/magic the stories take place in.

I believe it was always the intention of the game to be ABLE to simulate the novels the authors were interested in if they wanted to. Or to be able to simulate minor characters doing unimportant things in the same world if they wanted to. The rules don't simulate novels. They simulate fantasy worlds.

Consider this, one can play any edition of D&D in a totally story-free mode using random encounter-tables or heck a random dungeon generator in the back of 1e's (DMG?), strict tactical play in 4e, etc. The game doesn't really bring any intentional story to the table, the Players/DM do.

You are correct. However, I believe that it was the intention of the original authors that the PLayers and DM actually bring that story. There's a lot of recommendations in the rules to do precisely that.

It's like the rules say "Here's how much damage a fireball does, because we know you'll need to know that when a Wizard of the White Tower casts one in your storyline. But we don't want to tell you what the storyline should be, so the rules don't tell you that. Simulate whatever novels interest you. We've given you the tools you'll need to do that."

I'm definitely not suggesting that D&D should go the route of those other games. I think its fine the way it is (for a wide definition of "fine"). I'm just saying that this idea that D&D is a "story game" doesn't really hold as much water as folks seem to think.

I think that all roleplaying games are story games by being roleplaying games. Running D&D as you've suggested above with no story really removes it from the category of roleplaying games as you can do this exact same thing with the Descent board game or any of the D&D board games like Castle Ravenloft. It is the fact that you take the role of a character within a story that makes a game a roleplaying game.

 

[Ratskinner]

I think we are actually quite close in our thinking (at least about the nature of rpg play, if not what to call it).

I don't believe it to be a "simulator" of the stories, but a simulator of the worlds/people/magic the stories take place in.

I think you're not too far from the mark here, at least as they originally intended.

I believe it was always the intention of the game to be ABLE to simulate the novels the authors were interested in if they wanted to. Or to be able to simulate minor characters doing unimportant things in the same world if they wanted to. The rules don't simulate novels. They simulate fantasy worlds.

I do not think this is quite true. Having looked at the first rules sets, I think they were pretty clearly writing/reflecting a tactical game that was being played with fantasy trappings (descended from earlier wargames and inheriting some of their mechanics and trappings). It was only later, that it occurred to folks that this might be used as a venue(?) medium(?) platform(?) whatever-it-is-that-an-rpg-might-be that people could use to tell full and rich stories. I think the texts of the early versions bear out the growing recognition of that possibility and by the time 2e arrived it was recognized as a clear goal of play (perhaps the presumed play goal of the 2e books.)

You are correct. However, I believe that it was the intention of the original authors that the PLayers and DM actually bring that story. There's a lot of recommendations in the rules to do precisely that.

It's like the rules say "Here's how much damage a fireball does, because we know you'll need to know that when a Wizard of the White Tower casts one in your storyline. But we don't want to tell you what the storyline should be, so the rules don't tell you that. Simulate whatever novels interest you. We've given you the tools you'll need to do that."

Gygax at times ranted that any change in the rules meant that you weren't playing D&D (which may have been motivated by some copyright issues, as I understand it.) His only recommendations for changes seem to reflect the ideas of "fairness" or "challenge". Its only (AFAICT) by the time 2e comes around that we have explicit advice to change/alter/fudge the rules and results of the engine for the sake of story. I think 1e D&D is pretty explicitly not about being the great heroes of prophecy (or whatever) and more about finding out if you are said heroes. @pemerton has pointed out that some of the Basic D&D texts seem to recognize the desire for story in the game, but this occurs mainly in the introduction, and the rules do very little to reflect any presumed protagonism on the part of the PCs.

That said, when the idea did plant itself in TSR's collective noggin, they did take the tack that you suggest above. To my eyes, it was fairly explicitly modeled on stage-theatre. The game was the stage, sets, and bit players; the DM was the playwright and sometimes director; and players took the part of the stars (including getting told where to go, and how to perform). The text of 2e took this viewpoint and many subsequent games as far afield as World of Darkness inherited it. Its failure to satisfy many story-oriented gamers (particularly in the WoD games) seems to have been a primary motivator for the advent of the Forge.

I think that all roleplaying games are story games by being roleplaying games. Running D&D as you've suggested above with no story really removes it from the category of roleplaying games as you can do this exact same thing with the Descent board game or any of the D&D board games like Castle Ravenloft. It is the fact that you take the role of a character within a story that makes a game a roleplaying game.

I am not entirely certain, but I don't think so. The 1e DMG (IIRC) has a random dungeon-generator in the back. I don't think one can claim that the authors of the first rpg were intending story to happen with a random dungeon-generator (except perhaps randomly, as it would in say sports or war). I believe that D&D inadvertently created a third category somewhere in the between "storygame" and "boardgame", where play doesn't necessarily follow a clearly defined story arc or present character theses with well-defined anti-theses and resolutions for them. That third category is what I think a lot of D&D play is, and I have no other word for it than "role-playing game".

 

[Tovec]

There is much more to it with respect to baseball and golf (primarily conservation of energy and conservation of momentum; the collision occurring at a specific angle, compressing the ball and generating backspin which also dictates trajectory and length, and the collision being center of mass for the ball and sweet spot of bad/club head face) but the above is what is applicable to the conversation and the generation of power of a swung implement; conserve momentum, reduce friction. These are achieved through technique primarily and most often "swinging harder" is poison. Once technique is perfectly honed and small muscle strength has peaked, there is incremental gain in MPH through large muscle strength.

If I'm reading all this correctly, all these big words next to eachother with little to explain their correlation, then I think you may be forgetting the important thing that differentiates baseball from golf in respect to something like power attack. Golf balls don't move.

The next thing I would say is that training, represented by a base attack bonus or feats for example, will increase your chances to hit. In that way a well trained professional baseball player will have a much higher chance of hitting the ball than I will - and with more strength since he is able to power attack.

Either way, to really care I would probably have to go back and reread the conversation but I was just trying to explain the idea behind power attack.

 

[Manbearcat]

Either way, to really care I would probably have to go back and reread the conversation but I was just trying to explain the idea behind power attack.

No, I read you. And I understand the premise. And I do agree that it certainly is intuitive. Try to put more force into something equals more kinetic energy equals more applied force. Makes sense. However, it actually doesn't work out that way so I was just agreeing with Bluenose (and noting the physics) that "Swing harder" doesn't translate to more bat speed/club head speed and it generally creates the antithesis; grip harder, swing harder reduces bat/club head speed. Its literally the first thing you're taught (or you teach, which I have with respect to baseball) in either of those techniques. I don't have any formal training in sword-play, or the like, but I suspect you chose a pretty good analog with baseball.

Sports physics and kineseology are pretty intense these days. Most interactions have been broken down completely.

Its sort of like our ability score conundrum in D&D. There is a ton going on in every martial action/contest (with all or most ability scores involved) but, for ease of use, we choose a single ability score to stand in for a complex algorothim involving all of them.