Idle Musings - D&D design scope

[Balesir]

In D&D abstraction, as we understand in the more modern versions, we should probably have the damage dice be the same. That is not likely to happen.

I think it's interesting, too, to mull over why it's "not likely to happen". Unpacking it a bit:

- We say "it won't happen" because we can't imagine the designers making the decision and sticking to it

- The likely vector preventing them doing so seems likely to be player reaction; it would be a very unpopular move

- My intuition is that mostly the different damage levels are ways for the players to skew the probabilities of the systems to suit their own preferences - to "win" (for a player-selected value of "win")

In other words, I think the wish to have different weapon damage expressions is a "gamist" one. Which brings me to point two...

I think styles of gaming, in all their several dimensions/axes, are a bit like motivations and values. What I mean here is the difference between a Value, which is something that we believe to be right through rationality, upbringing or faith, and a Motivation, which is something that actually excites us and drives us to act. People will often be open and vocal about and in support of their Values, but Motivations can be a very private, very hidden affair - possibly even denied internally by the holder of the Motivations.

Claiming things about peoples' motivations is unwise for two reasons: (1) the inferences we make about motivations are often wrong, and (2) motivations are often felt to be an intensely private place, prying into which is a serious invasion of person.

What should, ideally, drive design is player motivation; but the sensitivity and difficulty of detection of that will inevitably, I think, make all these discussions, to some extent, a case of "groping in the dark".

 

[jrowland]

Nice trick. You inferred a motivation for my comment that it "likely won't happen". Then claimed a moral high ground and lectured on the "unwise" claims regarding peoples motivation. But then closed saying elucidating motivation should drive design.

eschewing obfuscation indeed!

 

[chaochou]

Nice trick. You inferred a motivation for my comment that it "likely won't happen". Then claimed a moral high ground and lectured on the "unwise" claims regarding peoples motivation. But then closed saying elucidating motivation should drive design.

Just to say, that's not how I read the post. It looked to me like your line prompted a new tangent from Balesir, but not one that seemed directed at, or critical of, you or your post.

Ymmv and all that.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

- My intuition is that mostly the different damage levels are ways for the players to skew the probabilities of the systems to suit their own preferences - to "win" (for a player-selected value of "win")

In other words, I think the wish to have different weapon damage expressions is a "gamist" one. Which brings me to point two...

Good post. I think this bit is complicated. I'm sure that sometimes the preference is gamist, but I think there are other reasons for it, as wel. For example, some people like the different die sizes because it becomes a way to make weapons feel different (however good or bad that is in the abstraction as construed). I've got a fair bit of this myself, and I noticed it most when comparing system outside of D&D that don't make as many differences in damage expressions. Moreover, if I remember my D&D history correctly, the original reason for switching from all d6s to the different sizes was because ... they got some polyhedrals and wanted to use them. Gamers like rolling funky dice, and did almost from the beginning.

There's a sense in which unpacking assumptions about particular troublesome game mechanics is what this topic is about. My various mechanic styles that I've tried to elucidate, are in service to that alone. I'll happily modify or strangle any or all of them that get in the way of that goal.

 

[Balesir]

Nice trick. You inferred a motivation for my comment that it "likely won't happen". Then claimed a moral high ground and lectured on the "unwise" claims regarding peoples motivation. But then closed saying elucidating motivation should drive design.

Just to say, that's not how I read the post. It looked to me like your line prompted a new tangent from Balesir, but not one that seemed directed at, or critical of, you or your post.

Hi, [MENTION=94389]jrowland[/MENTION] - sorry! That wasn't even in my mind as I wrote the post - it was just as [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] says, your post triggered a tangent in my mind that I though was worth sharing.

As [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] says, this thread is about unpacking the preferences and reasons around various mechanics - and I think your post is a good and interesting contribution to that. I just tried to build on it.

 

[ren1999]

I hear you Crazy.

Here are what I think the design goals should be.

D&D should have a core system consisting of things that a majority of players agree on.

It should have an optional module for players and DM's that prefer a "Theater of the Mind" experience without a battle map grid and miniatures.
It should have an alternate module for players who prefer a map and miniatures.

It should have another optional module for players and DM's who prefer that each character and monster get absolutely nothing but one standard action per turn.
It should have an alternate optional module for players and DM's who want a game where players and monsters can take an action when attacked and then a number of actions during each turn in accordance with level. I purpose 1 additional standard action every 5 levels.

It should have an optional module for rolled hit points with the possibility of stupidly low starting hit points so some players can enjoy that risk and frustration of having to roll new characters several times.
But there should be an alternate optional module for those who want the constitution score and static hit points or a variation of minimum static hit points with the chance to roll higher hit points. Then the player can get static hit points every level.

D&D should try to be educational. Teach something about armor and weapons. Teach something about ancient societies. Teach real first aid by simulating it as a skill. Teach other real skills through simulation.

D&D should keep all bonuses at +10 because higher bonuses don't mean anything if defenses also increase.
Capping scores is also important because of this attrition of attacks versus defenses.
However, Hit Points need to be high if characters and monsters are going to get more than one action per turn. Even doing 1[w] damage can stack up against 1 target.

D&D should reward the party for completing a goal or getting treasure -- not just killing monsters. Many goals should be specified by module designers with xp rewards.

Every level, a character should increase in some capability. I purpose just one new capability per level. 1 feat, or skill, or spell or prayer. +1 to an ability.

 

[slobo777]

To-hit rolls and damage rolls might provide the illusion of process simulation, but I'm far from convinced that they're not just more blank canvas to paint whatever you like over.

I think that is insightful, but also based on things everyone has learned over the history of gaming. Or in other words, when it was actually happening from day one, I don't believe anyone was thinking like this.

From my perspective, the original D&D mechanics were seen with a simulationist agenda, which drove a lot of the added complexity as designers and writers tried to add more knowledge about "how things work". But there have been mismatches between the original super-simplified simulation, and what others who then built upon it have taken words like "hit" and "miss" and "injury" to mean. Which means even more inconsistency and hand-waving explanations.

To me, this has been a lot like having many writers each contributing an episode to a series (like first series Star Trek), each of them with their own little morality or did-you-know-schoolboy-science tale to tell. Then it is down to the poor viewer to try and understand the back-to-front universe that the overall story happens in (or perhaps to decide to ignore that and enjoy things anyway).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

From my perspective, the original D&D mechanics were seen with a simulationist agenda, which drove a lot of the added complexity as designers and writers tried to add more knowledge about "how things work"...

I think this is where the recent distinction between "emulation" and "simulation" is probably on target. In my mind, the original D&D mechanics were not a simulation, but rather an attempt to emulate the flow of fantasy miniature wargames wedded to some of the fantasy stories that the authors enjoyed. The wargaming background provided fertile fields for using abstractions. (You don't handle every swing of each sword in a wargame.)

In contrast, the reaction to D&D by other early fantasy gamers is, I believe, as you have characterized above. RuneQuest is pretty much an attempt to simulate a particular brand of myth--originally in a particular world.