What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Imaro]

At the risk of sounding like I'm reversing what I said before, there IS a fundamental sense in which, 4e aside, D&D has stuck to its original premise rather closely. The GM generates a world as a sort of 'challenge' or 'puzzle' to the players, who have NO input into its particulars (at least formally). The players assume persona and direct them based entirely on in-game knowledge and without any recourse to the exterior logic of the game system itself (again formally and ideally). NOTHING has changed one iota in this formula since 1974.

Nor has the essential 'formula' of the game varied (here even 4e is pretty much in line with the rest of D&D editions). Characters explore exotic locales, which act as challenging situations for them to overcome, receiving loot and XP as a reward for survival and overcoming said challenges. XP accumulates, driving the characters to advance on a steep power curve, where they then face proportionately more powerful creatures and situations, wash, rinse, repeat.

There are significant variations in some of the thematics, and obvious differences in mechanics, but the 'core' really is fairly stable. You can quite easily and straightforwardly translate any 1970's vintage TSR module into 5e and run practically unchanged, simply substituting the modern stat blocks and maybe exchanging a monster or two where for some reason their power levels have been altered somewhat. Again, 4e is the exception, and that is the game we talk about when we talk about narrative focus of play in D&D, for a reason!

Yes but are we talking about evolving or becoming a different game?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Specific editions sometimes have other little tidbits. 2e's XP rules are a bit of a way for the DM to compel certain things from the PLAYERS, but nothing works the other way at all.

Spells can compel the DM, after a fashion.
I've certainly felt compelled to add teleport barriers, anti-magic fields, magic-resistant monsters, and Mordenkainen's Disjunction casting arch-mages/liches/arcanadaemons to my dungeons back in the day...

5e has the optional Inspiration rule and associated 'character traits', but they are really kind of just tacked-on to the existing game paradigm.

Its pretty limited in scope compared to Aspects.

BTW, I feel I should soften my 'D&D has not evolved' stance... after all, what is the alternative theory to evolution?

Intelligent Design

 

[Lanefan]

Missed this one earlier...

Is (4) also "without too much 'persuasion' by the DM and/or players?" Or is the first hypothetical game held to RAW, while D&D is let off the leash?

No, (4) can use as much persuasion as required in order to make the first hypothetical game system redundant.

Designing the first hypothetical game (FHG) and then kitbashing that instead seems like a complete waste of effort; I'm assuming the FHG's RAW already achieve what you want and so yes, it's held to RAW.

 

[Ovinomancer]

OK, this is a concrete claim. How would you address the sorts of styles of play which are typically addressed by the signature mechanics of FATE? (I would take these to be character aspects primarily, and how they are tied into the mechanics, I know this varies to some extent between incarnations of FATE-based games).

For my part I see nothing in D&D which provides anything like the dynamics of compelling an aspect in FATE, or the mechanics of scene framing which it expects. 'classic' D&D is entirely bereft of anything here. I will note certain exceptions which help to prove this assertion:

1. D&D in general has classes, which are pretty good at defining characters, but they are very generic and offer no mechanics or framework for leveraging them. At best DMs might do things like take account of a character's class in determining how NPCs interact with them (IE offering an army command to a fighter, and an advisor role to a wizard).
2. Fighters specifically have 'domain mechanics' at high level which DO verge on something close to an 'aspect' in a sense. However, they are generic to all fighters and don't provide any mechanism to compel, nor any direct tie into structuring the plot. At best they act as guides to DMs and players, at worst as a simple resource system (a class feature).
3. Ability scores, particularly in early D&D, could be seen as largely something akin to aspects. Again, there's little to tie them to plot, though they COULD govern character's options in play (but there are few formal rules for this, only scattered subsystems like BBLG).
4. Paladins have specific restrictions. These are pretty strong, and enforced with a big stick, so they do produce some results, but not in a way very similar to FATE!
5. Alignment, depending on how the DM interprets it, might perform some of this work.
6. Race could be sort of an aspect, but this is similar to the case with class, very generic and lacking any sort of ties to mechanics that would shape the plot.

Specific editions sometimes have other little tidbits. 2e's XP rules are a bit of a way for the DM to compel certain things from the PLAYERS, but nothing works the other way at all. 5e has the optional Inspiration rule and associated 'character traits', but they are really kind of just tacked-on to the existing game paradigm.

I think that this is missing the mark. The question isn't "Can system X ape the mechanics of system Y" but rather "can system X provide the same playgoal/outcome as system Y". The idea is to look at whether a given system can evoke a desired feel, not whether it does that evocation the same way. For instance, no one plays Fate to evoke the Fate's mechanics. They play Fate because it lets them evoke the kind of experience they players want. Instead of evaluating whether or not D&D can do the mechanical end of what aspects in Fate do, we should be looking to see what aspects actually do, and then if D&D can do that.

My answer is that aspects evoke meaningful character choices in game by using those character choices to allow success or add complication to play.

That said, D&D can do this. I do this regularly in my D&D 5e game by taking what players have given me as important about their characters in backgrounds and traits and letting those improve or hinder action declarations in play. Frex, I had a player that had caravaner as a background, who's story was that she grew up on the trail with her father's caravan, trading around the realm. For this, whenever a question of where a given settlement or landmark was or the best way to get there from here, her character knew, and had advantage on navigation checks between settlements. In Fate terms, she had an aspect along the lines of "I always know the way" or somesuch.

Now, if you want to talk about which system does this better, then Fate does, hands down. It's built around this kind of evocation as the centerpiece of play. No arguments. But I don't think comparing whether or not D&D has aspect-like mechanics really gets to the question asked. I think you can mostly do most play goals in most systems, but they're better served in systems that place those play goals front and center rather than systems that pay lip service to them or mostly ignore them. D&D does what it does, and I think it's a broad platform that can accommodate a wide range of play goals, but none super duper well. It's generalist and somewhat malleable. Other games, especially ones that focus on a theme or playgoal (or both) will do that better than D&D, oftentimes much better, but it's going to be hard to not find at least some space for that goal in the broad tent of D&D.

Now, all that said, D&D does fantasy. It doesn't do non-fantasy settings well. Other games (like Fate) are very much setting agnostic, so that's a strong point in their favor. If my goal is 'I want to play cyberpunk' D&D is of no help whatsoever, but I could play that in Fate.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Missed this one earlier...
No, (4) can use as much persuasion as required in order to make the first hypothetical game system redundant....t; I'm assuming the FHG's RAW already achieve what you want and so yes, it's held to RAW.

So, with any game in either position, all you have to do is kitbash the second game into a functional clone of the first.
That says litterally nothing about the second game, which is just a placeholder in the exercise.

Hold both games to RaW and the comparison might mean something.

 

[Aldarc]

That said, D&D can do this. I do this regularly in my D&D 5e game by taking what players have given me as important about their characters in backgrounds and traits and letting those improve or hinder action declarations in play.

I'm not so sure about that, at least not without some caveats. It sounds less like "D&D can do this" and more like "the GM can do this." Your answer seems less about what the system can do and more about the capabilities of the GM, an agent independent of the system. And your second sentence kinda underscores this point; you do this, but the system does not inherently facilitate these sort of things nor is it built to do so. So it seems somewhat disingenuous to say that this is something that the system does or can do. It reminds me of my first car. Can I play CDs in my car? Sure, once I installed a CD player, but it did not come equipped with it, nor it does not say anything about what my model of car can actually do, since this required me to build in additional features.

Now, if you want to talk about which system does this better, then Fate does, hands down. It's built around this kind of evocation as the centerpiece of play. No arguments. But I don't think comparing whether or not D&D has aspect-like mechanics really gets to the question asked. I think you can mostly do most play goals in most systems, but they're better served in systems that place those play goals front and center rather than systems that pay lip service to them or mostly ignore them. D&D does what it does, and I think it's a broad platform that can accommodate a wide range of play goals, but none super duper well. It's generalist and somewhat malleable. Other games, especially ones that focus on a theme or playgoal (or both) will do that better than D&D, oftentimes much better, but it's going to be hard to not find at least some space for that goal in the broad tent of D&D.

Now, all that said, D&D does fantasy. It doesn't do non-fantasy settings well. Other games (like Fate) are very much setting agnostic, so that's a strong point in their favor. If my goal is 'I want to play cyberpunk' D&D is of no help whatsoever, but I could play that in Fate.

And here I agree with you hands down.

There are lots of games that do fantasy, and yet we walk away from these different game systems with different experiences, fun utility, and or perceived replay value. A D&D game does not run like a Dungeon World game. A Dungeon World game does not run like a Tiny Dungeon game. A Tiny Dungeon game does not run like a Shadows of the Demon Lord game. A Shadows of the Demon Lord game does not run like a Genesys game. They could all run the same story. They could all take "what players have given [the GM] as important about their characters in backgrounds and traits and letting those improve or hinder action declarations in play," but that seems less about system mechanics and more about GM. In which case, we may ask what can D&D as a system of game mechanics do well that isn't the GM "installing a CD player"?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not so sure about that, at least not without some caveats. It sounds less like "D&D can do this" and more like "the GM can do this."

In 5e, as in the hallowed classic game, The DM /is/ D&D.

Like "The King is The Land."

It one of the Gygaxian Mysteries.

we may ask what can D&D as a system of game mechanics do well that isn't the GM "installing a CD player"?

Reward System Mastery?

 

[Aldarc]

In 5e, as in the hallowed classic game, The DM /is/ D&D.

As is also the case in nearly every other system out there so I don't think it really says anything about what a system can do.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think I already addressed this with 5e and inspiration. Compelling an aspect at it's most basic form is being rewarded with mechanical effectiveness for bringing into play the traits of your character... either through a bonus to/reroll of... your roll or through the awarding of a FATE point for a complication. 5e's inspiration mechanic works in the same way... especially if one uses the optional rules from the DMG to flesh it out more. Now I'm not sure how it being optional in any way changes the fact that it does perform the function of aspect compels since it only strengthens my argument that while not necessary (I don't have nay players who like that playstyle) it is there for those who do want to engage with it.

Now as far as scene framing goes... what exactly are the mechanics for that in FATE? I'm a little confused by this statement as I don't remember there being any specific mechanics around scene framing or maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by mechanics in this instance... so I'll refrain from answering that until I get a clearer understanding if you are willing to expound...

OK, what optional tells me is that the game already has a set paradigm on which it works, independently of some sort of narrative mechanics (Inspiration and etc). So any such rules are going to be a secondary consideration, something added onto existing mechanics to tweak an existing system. OTOH the mechanics in FATE are the game, they're central to how it works and everything else is built up around that concept. Thus I don't agree that 5e Inspiration achieves the same thing, or leads to the same sort of play that exists in FATE.

Scene framing simply IS the process with FATE, every scene in the game exists in relation to the needs/goals/aspects of the PCs. Now, FATE itself is a sort of boilerplate, not a system that you just play. You have to 'flesh it out' and part of that process would involve certain types of decisions. That would include whether or not your game is a zero myth, story now sort of game, or if it focuses more on some predetermined elements. So it isn't possible to be completely definitive in terms of what that process is in FATE.

In general the process is simply that the players define what they want to do in some fashion, via backstory, build choices, aspects (mainly in FATE), and maybe other things. The GM then frames a scene in terms which directly challenge the beliefs/goals/interests of the characters in terms of what they decided those were. FATE, IIRC then allows players to use FATE points to add or change some of the elements introduced by the GM. Play proceeds with the dice determining whether or not character's achieve their objects in the scene or not, and at some point the scene ends (IIRC there are some rules about when this happens) and the GM frames a new scene, or play proceeds in a purely narrative fashion so as to set up the next conflict.

Honestly I'm not a FATE guru either. I'm sure there are other people who can get down into the detailed specifics on that system more than I can.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not so sure about that, at least not without some caveats. It sounds less like "D&D can do this" and more like "the GM can do this." Your answer seems less about what the system can do and more about the capabilities of the GM, an agent independent of the system. And your second sentence kinda underscores this point; you do this, but the system does not inherently facilitate these sort of things nor is it built to do so. So it seems somewhat disingenuous to say that this is something that the system does or can do. It reminds me of my first car. Can I play CDs in my car? Sure, once I installed a CD player, but it did not come equipped with it, nor it does not say anything about what my model of car can actually do, since this required me to build in additional features.

And here I agree with you hands down.

There are lots of games that do fantasy, and yet we walk away from these different game systems with different experiences, fun utility, and or perceived replay value. A D&D game does not run like a Dungeon World game. A Dungeon World game does not run like a Tiny Dungeon game. A Tiny Dungeon game does not run like a Shadows of the Demon Lord game. A Shadows of the Demon Lord game does not run like a Genesys game. They could all run the same story. They could all take "what players have given [the GM] as important about their characters in backgrounds and traits and letting those improve or hinder action declarations in play," but that seems less about system mechanics and more about GM. In which case, we may ask what can D&D as a system of game mechanics do well that isn't the GM "installing a CD player"?

Right, what I would say is that [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] is shifting the goal posts. The question was about what the SYSTEM does, and he is trying to talk about what the GM can do, independent of system.

BUT I would go further and say that systems like 5e ACTIVELY WORK AGAINST the sorts of play that you would see in a game like FATE. The way characters are designed in 5e vests all their abilities in their character features and abilities, and these are NOT gated by any situational mechanic, except Inspiration, which is a pretty superficial mechanism. AT BEST what this means is that a player interested in a specific sort of game experience has to trust entirely in the ability and interest of the GM in producing what he wants, BY KITBASHING 5e (or just relying on ad hoc 'rulings'). Clearly, as a player interested in something like a story now game, or even a more traditional but narratively focused game, it is in my better interests, more sure to produce what I want, if I play in a game that uses FATE instead of 5e. To get the full experience with 5e, we really have to alter that game, and that's been proven time and time again to be a process fraught with the risk of missing the boat.

Remember, the original point made where was a claim that some universal system, such as 5e, can simply be kitbashed into anything and it will serve to replace any other arbitrary game. I think we've sufficiently dismissed that claim as far fetched. Certainly to make 5e into 'FATE for fantasy' would require a degree of kitbashing so large that it wouldn't qualify as being 5e anymore in most people's book.