Why is realism "lame"?

[Bedrockgames]

I think generally speaking, tighter more focused games are easier for smaller companies to do (i like to think my games are somewhat tightly focused) because they can suceed by marketing to a narrow fanbase. But ike movies or tv, the broader an audience you want, the more general you want the content. I think with D&D people have been playing it a bunch of different ways from very early on. Each edition did tend to lean in one direction or another, but was broad enough that most seemed to be able to get the experience they wanted from it. 4E was just too succesful in achieving a foused design, which worked astoundingly well for the group who wanted that exact type of game, but freaked out anyone playing the game differently.

The problem is, once you splinter a fan base, the damageis done. New preferences and expectations are set. Before 4E, there wasnt a sizeable group of D&D players who expected it to play like 4E plays. Now there is. Folks have had a taste of D&D just the way they like it, and you cant blame them for being a bit miffed that the publisher is yanking that away.

My guess is 4E will survive either as a side system through wotconce they realize 5E cant win over many 4E players, or through clones of the system. I also think it is going to spawn a bunch of games done in the same spirit even if they use different systems. You will probably see another strong midtier company emerge once people figure out it is a very solid niche to occupy with an enthusiastic fanbase.

4E isnt my cup of tea, but I can see how well it resonates with a core group and amd sure there is money there for the publisher who takes the first step.

 

[I'm A Banana]

People half a country (or more - I'm in the UK so many gamers in the gamer-rich US will count) away will play as they like, and this will not bother me in the slightest. But if I have a game that does what I want for a specific campaign without me having to understand its dials and options so well that I can mould it into a game that does what I want, the "mouldable" game won't get a look in. I have little time and I'm fundamentally lazy/pragmatic by alignment.

Sounds like the OGL + a modular system would be perfect! You could pick up a set of pre-packaged 4e-esque rules put out by WotC or by some intrepid 4e fan who sees the dials they can turn in 5e and then turns them.

I hear you on the "Neutral Lazy" alignment, which is part of why I'm a big advocate for that idea.

This is theoretically possible in a "monkeys and typewriters" sense, but (a) I'm not convinced it's their aim and (b) I see no glimmerings of this in the playtest material so far. Sure, there might be a "tactical combat" module and so on, but (as others have said) this misses most of the point. GURPS is already a game that has "tactical combat" options and a plethora of other options, but it very decidedly does not do what 4e does in this respect. The very fact that there are other "optional" systems - or even "core" systems that are overwritten by the "4e lookalike" options - muddies the waters and makes the system less clear and unambiguous.

Does the system need to be entirely clear and unambiguous if your own games can be clear and unambiguous?

On a bit of a side-note, I do wonder what 4e does for some folks that 5e isn't doing, and if 5e could easily do them with a few bends and knobs. And I mean specifically, functionally, in the actual play experience. That's probably worth a thread all its own, though. I'm reasonably confident that whatever a 4e fan wants to do with D&D at their own table, 5e could probably do. What might be difficult is 5e as an entire system doing what 4e does as an entire system, but as long as we're each only interested in our own games and how they play, and not in being gatekeepers for all the millions of people who play the game, that shouldn't be a big deal.

I wonder what the "point" is, or what the points are. What are big 4e fans seeing that will neutralize their own style of fun?

If the "multigame option" is what "D&D fans" want, then I say "let them have it". I'm not sure exactly how widespread the preference is, but it seems pretty common, and it's what the IP owner has decided to support. If I sound like I'm moaning, it's not because the folks with these preferences will get what they want - I'm genuinely glad for them. I'm just sad that me - and apparently others, too - will not get what we like supported for the time being.

See, I'm optimistic that 4e fans (or fans of gritty games, or 3e fans, or 1e fans) can still get what they want out of 5e, as long as what they want isn't to dictate what the entire system is like. So, anyone who wants a game that will never include Dragonborn or Drow or Gnomes or Alignment or Paladins as core options is SOL. But anyone who wants to play a game without any of those things would be entirely able to.

To figure out what people want, it might be useful to drill down into what actually happens during play that people want. And that digs into iffy issues of psychology, page design, nomenclature, and other weedy parts, too, where someone might not like a given rule just because of the format of the thing. But it might also bear some interesting fruit.

 

[CroBob]

For what it may be worth, I don't see @CroBob as fixed on arguing that "realistic D&D" is "wrong" so much as holding my initial position of puzzlement over why some folk desire to use D&D for "realistic" play.

That's exactly the case, but if I'm being rude, even if by accident, I don't want to push that.

I have come to realise that the simple truth seems to be that, for some people, D&D is roleplaying.

How do you mean that? Do you mean they're unaware that there are other systems out there, or that it's more like just a strong, subconscious connection, or what? Because I've noticed some people mention that non-D&D games are rare and difficult to get into. Perhaps I've been fortunate in the people I've met, but I've never found this to be an actual problem. So are some people directly opposed to playing something that's not D&D, or do they not want to take the time to learn new rules, or what?

 

[CroBob]

Personally, I think people need to stop advocating for what the system should be and start figuring out how they want the game they play at their own tables to work.

That is, frankly, completely irrelevant when you're discussing a manufactured game. The manufactured game is what it is regardless what your table likes. Your table probably already knows what it likes, what it wants to try, etc. That's a non-issue. If the system you'd be paying money for doesn't match what you want, though, you're not going to buy it. The people who saw the innovation and modern game design strategy as a good thing in 4E don't want to effectively take a step backwards into a game which doesn't come as a completed product, which requires you to modify and tweak the rules in order to be functional in a meaningful way, and which allows for character power imbalance right from the get-go. That's how a lot of people see the development of 5E going.

 

[Balesir]

How do you mean that? Do you mean they're unaware that there are other systems out there, or that it's more like just a strong, subconscious connection, or what? Because I've noticed some people mention that non-D&D games are rare and difficult to get into. Perhaps I've been fortunate in the people I've met, but I've never found this to be an actual problem. So are some people directly opposed to playing something that's not D&D, or do they not want to take the time to learn new rules, or what?

It's probably a mix of all the things you mention, but I think there's a perception that D&D is "the vast majority of (fantasy) roleplaying" and that "the rest" consists of a thin and tattered fringe of minority, amateur efforts that are too difficult, too splintered, too complex or whatever else to be worth the (overestimated, I think) expense and effort to get into. Thus D&d is "it", so "it" has to cover all the bases desired.

Now, I know - and I guess you know - that there are a whole array of professionally produced, slick, imaginative and exciting games out there that cover all sorts of bases really well. But, from the point of view of a gamer who is maybe not as "hardcore" as either of us and who really knows only one system, I can see how it might appear pretty intimidating. Possibly the best/only thing we can do to help is to run as many "minority" games as we can, with as open access as we can give, to help those worried gamers get at least a taste of life "beyond the pale".

On a bit of a side-note, I do wonder what 4e does for some folks that 5e isn't doing, and if 5e could easily do them with a few bends and knobs. And I mean specifically, functionally, in the actual play experience. That's probably worth a thread all its own, though. I'm reasonably confident that whatever a 4e fan wants to do with D&D at their own table, 5e could probably do. What might be difficult is 5e as an entire system doing what 4e does as an entire system, but as long as we're each only interested in our own games and how they play, and not in being gatekeepers for all the millions of people who play the game, that shouldn't be a big deal.

I wonder what the "point" is, or what the points are. What are big 4e fans seeing that will neutralize their own style of fun?

It's hard to pin down exactly what the defining point of "coolness" is, but part of it is the player agency through clear, open, functionally complete and shared rules. That is, the GM may choose to modify some aspect of the rules if it better fits the game their table is playing, but the GM doesn't have to modify the rules - especially not on the fly - because the rules are either unclear or incomplete, or because one player or character category dominates to the detriment of others' fun if they don't.

As a 4e DM I don't study the character abilities - either those available in the books or those my players have picked - at all. I get to see them in play, obviously, but I don't need to know what the characters can do in order to present fun and challenging situations to the players. Nor do I need to judge corner cases or elastically defined rules text all the time in play. I just study my NPCs and Monsters, and focus on having them act sensibly - and intelligently if they are intelligent - in trying to achieve their own ends and make the PCs' lives difficult

Rather than having to juggle all the disparate parts in order to wrestle the game into working smoothly, I just push in one, design-supported direction, and fun and stories just happen. I think that's the best way I can put it - I don't have to wrangle and dodge to get fun, engaging play to emerge any more with D&D when I play 4e. That play just happens when I press in the right direction. For me, all the best systems work that way - it's just that the direction you need to push can be different from one system to another.

 

[Elf Witch]

If they are still sticking with their mpdular approach to 5E, this is probably the ideal timeto express that opinion. If you want truly gritty, i think it would take quite a fewdials but could see a "Dark and Gritty" book coming out to support the game. If they can squeeze in a ton of optional rules likethey did in the 2E core books, they might be able to fit in some gritty options in the core book.

we should keep in mind that is what they said next would be all about: dials you can adjust to make the game play how you want. I see nothing wrong with including a gritty end of the spectrum on those dials.

This is my hope for DnD next that they do really do a game with dials. It is why I download and playtest the rules respond to the surveys. This is the time to get what you would like to see in DnD out there.

I am also working with my roommate to take the Shadowrun rules and adapt them to a fantasy game. I know they did Earthdawn but it is out of print and I don't have the money right now to buy any new gaming stuff.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That is, frankly, completely irrelevant when you're discussing a manufactured game. The manufactured game is what it is regardless what your table likes.

In my mind, a solid modular game will be what your table likes, whatever your table likes. That's one of the big strengths of modularity: the game isn't ONE thing, it's many different things, to many different tables.

The people who saw the innovation and modern game design strategy as a good thing in 4E don't want to effectively take a step backwards into a game which doesn't come as a completed product, which requires you to modify and tweak the rules in order to be functional in a meaningful way, and which allows for character power imbalance right from the get-go. That's how a lot of people see the development of 5E going.

I think that a modular game that encourages some easy modification is really no different than what every DM already does for their own home games. Do you identify player types a la Robin Laws/4eDMG2? Do you build encounters? Do you pay attention to what your players like and what they don't? Do you create NPC's? Do you decide what options are available? Do you invent stories and create world elements? Then you're already putting forth some minimum of effort. Modularity doesn't need to be any more complex than the work the DM already does in setting up a campaign.

That's part of why I'd present a modular system with a simple "newbie-version" of the game up front. It gives you a very basic skeleton that can be run straight out of the box. It doesn't have a whole lot of options, but it's easy to add and subtract and modify. A comparison with LEGOs seems salient: you buy a basic set that lets you build a castle according to the instructions, and then you buy another castle set and build a bigger castle of your own design, and then you buy the Batman set and suddenly you have a medieval Gotham City and then you buy the Star Wars set and now you have Batman and Yoda and some medieval knight sipping tea in the Mos Eisley Cantina while the Joker, Darth Vader, and a dragon burninate the peasants.

That basic set isn't going to exactly enable you to do everything right out of the box -- it's pretty simple. But it works, and delivers a basic LEGO experience.

part of it is the player agency through clear, open, functionally complete and shared rules.

So what's that look like in play? What's an example of that working in 4e that couldn't work in any other edition for one reason or another?

That is, the GM may choose to modify some aspect of the rules if it better fits the game their table is playing, but the GM doesn't have to modify the rules - especially not on the fly - because the rules are either unclear or incomplete, or because one player or character category dominates to the detriment of others' fun if they don't.

Yeah, that's the original LEGO castle: the instructions are clear and it comes with everything you need. And if what you want is clarity and ease of use, you can buy as many castle sets or as many sets from the Medeival World collection you want and make a whole medieval village look exactly like that one on the box. Easy peasy.

In D&D, this might look like a "basic dungeon-crawl" kind of a game. Gives you the basic elements of a D&D game (fighters, wizards, clerics, a dungeon, a dragon, some goblins, orcs, and kobolds, some treasure) and you don't even need to think about them.

And then as the game goes on, you can add more dungeons, or different monsters, or new classes like Thief and Paladin, and different kinds of dragons, and you don't need to think about them.

Of course, the blocks are built with modularity in mind, so that kid with Batman and Yoda and Medieval Knight Guy (or, in this analogy, the guy with his Space Opera Cthuluesque Psionics Game) is also enabled to go wild.

As a 4e DM I don't study the character abilities - either those available in the books or those my players have picked - at all. I get to see them in play, obviously, but I don't need to know what the characters can do in order to present fun and challenging situations to the players. Nor do I need to judge corner cases or elastically defined rules text all the time in play. I just study my NPCs and Monsters, and focus on having them act sensibly - and intelligently if they are intelligent - in trying to achieve their own ends and make the PCs' lives difficult

So, that's how I DM every edition except 4e. In 3e, or 2e, I don't feel like I need to account for corner cases or odd rules. I feel like I can plunk down some obstacle, and the party will figure out what to do with it, and I don't need to figure that out. In 4e, I feel like I need to spell out what my players' party needs to do to overcome the challenge quite explicitly. I can't just say "goblins live here," I feel like I have to say, "the party has X encounters with Y goblins and spend Z% of their resources and then they can rest because otherwise it's not fair."

But this is really just illustrating that when the game is going well, it seems that we're running it the same way, and we'd claim it had the same qualities. There's something about the rules of 4e that make this easier for you and harder for me, and there's something about the rules of the other e's that make it harder for you and easier for me, and I'd love to figure out what that is and why the approach is different. I can certainly elaborate on my reasons, but I feel like I might need to couch them in all sorts of caveats so that people don't come along, read my post, and then try to "correct" me. I feel like if I try to describe the elements of 4e that work against achieving this for me, people are more apt to tell me that I'm doing it wrong than they are to try and help me understand why it doesn't work for me, and why it does work for them.

 

[Elf Witch]

It is not that people are not aware of other systems. I am and I have played a few other systems. For me a big factor in sticking with DnD is cost. I don't have a huge budget for gaming for example my budget right now is zero. Since I won't pirate gaming materials I play what I have. I have mainly DnD from 1 to 3.5, Shadowrun, a few Pathfinder books, Some White Wolf and few odds and ends like Stargate, Toon and Tunnels and Trolls.

Another factor is I don't feel confident DMing a system I have not played a lot. My strength as DM lies in my ability to think on my feet and do a rich world, rules are my weakest even after playing 3E since it came out I still have to look things up.

DnD may not be the best system to give that grim and gritty feeling but it is not impossible to get it either. 4E should have taught WOTC a lesson and narrowing the focus on the game lost them a lot of players. People play DnD a lot of different ways and a system that supports that has a the ability to appeal to a larger group of players.

 

[Argyle King]

It is not that people are not aware of other systems. I am and I have played a few other systems. For me a big factor in sticking with DnD is cost. I don't have a huge budget for gaming for example my budget right now is zero. Since I won't pirate gaming materials I play what I have. I have mainly DnD from 1 to 3.5, Shadowrun, a few Pathfinder books, Some White Wolf and few odds and ends like Stargate, Toon and Tunnels and Trolls.

Another factor is I don't feel confident DMing a system I have not played a lot. My strength as DM lies in my ability to think on my feet and do a rich world, rules are my weakest even after playing 3E since it came out I still have to look things up.

DnD may not be the best system to give that grim and gritty feeling but it is not impossible to get it either. 4E should have taught WOTC a lesson and narrowing the focus on the game lost them a lot of players. People play DnD a lot of different ways and a system that supports that has a the ability to appeal to a larger group of players.

I find your point of view completely understandable. It makes sense. I feel the same way sometimes.

That being said, the question I'd like to ask is whether or not it's something if a self-defeating problem. It makes sense that you'd want to play something before DMing it; become more experienced. But how does that happen if you never play something else?

 

[Elf Witch]

I find your point of view completely understandable. It makes sense. I feel the same way sometimes.

That being said, the question I'd like to ask is whether or not it's something if a self-defeating problem. It makes sense that you'd want to play something before DMing it; become more experienced. But how does that happen if you never play something else?

That is a quandary. Even if I was brave enough to do it and could get my fellow players to go along with it I don't have the income to play another system for example used Harnmaser goes for around 40.00 brand new over 400.00. Dragon Age is around the same 40.00 range. I am disabled on a fixed income and things are really tight right now. My friends are not willing to shell out for a new system because a lot of them are in the same boat I am they have upside down mortgages, medical expenses, kids in college. We have all heavily invested in DnD over the years.

For some of them I think if the choice came down to either not playing or getting a new system they would choose not playing. Not because they don't enjoy playing but real life things come first.

So I am trying to make things work with what I have.