Settings and stories the rules can't handle (or don't handle well)

[Dausuul]

At first I thought: that's funny, and probably true.

Then I thought: now hang on a minute, there are quite a lot of versions of the game already.

And then I went to google and found this:
Amazon.com: Monopoly - The Lord of the Rings Trilogy Edition: Toys & Games

Yikes, wait till my grandpa sees this. That's all he'll want to play.

Okay, that's... that's...

Why do I even bother making fun of things?

 

[Celebrim]

I ran into Brandon Sanderson at Dragon*Con and played Magic with him, and afterward I picked up the first book of his Mistborn series. In it, magic comes in 10 varieties, and to use magic you have to ingest different metals, turning your stomach into a sort of alchemical forge.

Sounds like straight up D&D to me.

In 1e D&D, the spider climb spell required you to ingest a spider. How is this significantly different.

The only thing that I see is an essential change to capture the setting is the spell list.

I think D&D works perfectly for what you describe.

One thing people get hung up on is whether Vancian casting perfectly captures the flavor of the setting. I think this is irrelevant. The real question is can the system of Vancian casting capture the rhythm's and pacing of the story. And for most fantasy stories I believe it does a very good job indeed. The key thing to look for is whether, for whatever reason, magicians avoid using magic all the time. In this case, I've never read the books, but I would bet that the spellcasters cast spells only at intervals through the story and the pretence of the magic (in this case the ingestion of magic) is used to pace the intervals of this casting and to explain in an in story way why it is sometimes available and sometimes not. The pretence of Vancian magic is slightly different in explaining when it is available and when it isn't, but the effect within the story is almost identical.

It's this story emulation, not setting pretences, that we ought to be most concerned with emulating. For one thing, when we try to emulate the pretence of the setting, what we often find is that we don't actually emulate the story once we hand over the pretence to the use and abuse by the PC's. Quite often we find that the PC's are not interested in the stated or unstated assumptions that limit characters in the setting, with the result that despite emulating what are supposedly the rules of the setting, we have unsatisfying results because we don't actually emulate the story.

In this case, the two pretences are intergrated through a bit of a conceit, namely that spellcasters can only ingest so much metal at a time. This conceit is I think reasonable. Once that conceit is resolved, Vancian as emulated by D&D fits the described setting almost exactly. You prepare your spells ahead of time by ingesting metal, and you can only prepare a certain number of spells per day based on your skill and experience with doing so.

We can probably create some sort of hybrid wizard/sorcerer class to even more exactly duplicate the conceit of the setting, in as much as it sounds like you only need to prepare a spell of a particular 'school', and then - sorcerer like - you can spend the spell slot flexibly on any spell in that 'school' - but I think we are already a close fit for the setting.

About the only thing Vancian doesn't do well is pervasive low level magic. But we can resolve this by either allowing new spells to be prepared at faster intervals (every meal, or 8 hours, rather than every 24) or by implementing something along the lines of 'reserve feats' to represent the pervasive 'small' acts of magic we see used in the source material. But, of course, if we don't see pervasive small acts of magic, we have no need to go that route.

There are things that I think D&D can't handle, but I don't think you have hit upon one.

 

[Argyle King]

Again and again, I see threads regarding rules and story. Honestly that's apples and oranges. It ain't the system that can't handle the story, its the DM. Sometimes it takes some adjunction to the ruleset, if you want to be more precise with some 'new' mechanic. But generally it should be able to be shoe-horned in within an existing mechanic - psionics, arcane, divine, ki, clockwork/alchemy, or an alternate rules using one of those subsets.

While you could come up with some bizarre, unrealistic setting requirements and task the system rules you use. It shouldn't be too difficult.

Story is completely in the hands of the DM, and really has nothing to do with the rules. If the DM can handle the new story element, the mechanics should work right off no problem.

GP

I used to agree with this before I branched out into different rpgs. To some extent I still do agree with it - you can tell any story you want, but I also disagree with it. Mechanics are the foundation upon which the story is built; as such, I believe that a change in mechanics can (and often does) give a different feel to the story. In some cases, it's very hard to tell a certain type of story with a certain type of mechanics.

For an easy example, compare GURPS 4th Edition to D&D 4th Edition. The two games (in my opinion) take vastly different approaches to their mechanics and their gaming ideals upon which the systems are built. You could take the same exact story, run it once with each system, and wind up with two games which feel very different.

I'll even go so far as to say that the same player playing the same character in the same situation would handle it differently depending upon system. The respective systems differ in not only how situations are handled, but they also differ in what they'll reward you for.


To answer the OP:

What do I feel D&D does not do well?

Realism would be the first thing which comes to mind. If I want to run a setting or a situation which feels more real or has a certain level of grit, I'm probably not going to be satisfied with D&D.


What do I feel D&D does very well?

Mythic Fantasy and High Fantasy

Supers - I can imagine running a super hero game with D&D 4E and having it feel right.

 

[Celebrim]

Rubbish.

Fantasy stories tend to be full of "mechanics" assumptions/implications, particularly to do with magic, but sometimes other things as well. To get D&D to fit such kinds of stories is, well, basically a lost cause.

Rubbish.

Fantasy stories usually have in their background various exposition about how magic works. But all of these descriptions come down to one of two things.

Either magic is always available to those that can wield and they do wield it all the time, or else magic - for whatever reason - is not always available to those that wield it and much of the time they refrain from using it. Because pervasive magic tends to trivialize the accomplishments of the hero by making everything too easy, in practice most fantasy stories fall into the second category.

D&D can successfully emulate pretty much any fantasy story that falls into that second category, and not only that, it often emulates the story _better_ than attempting to emulate the mechanics of magic described in the exposition.

For example, in the 'Lord of the Rings', presumably Gandalf could use magic pretty much all the time. He doesn't however. In fact, he rarely uses it. The in story explanation of this is that he's essentially refraining from using magic for what are personal and moral reasons. But, if we directly ported these 'role playing constraints' to a game, we'd quickly find that - like all 'role playing constraints' - they would not in the hands of most players actually constrain the story to resemble that of 'Lord of the Rings'. Players would find excuses to use magic all the time. On the other hand, if we made Gandalf literally a 6th level Wizard, the player of Gandalf would be constrained to parcel out his magic in small doses most of the time, saving his big splashy effects only for emergencies. Even though the underlying conciets are very different, the story we are creating is to an observer unable to see the game mechanics, potentially and often actually very much the same.

Or, it might simply be such a flexible system (e.g., M&M) that nearly any genre or subgenre is doable, with ease. . . provided you don't mind the level of "crunch" that game brings with it in the first place.

Rubbish.

It's obvious to me that we aren't going to see eye to eye on this. M&M is a great system, but I don't buy that it's capable of emulating every genre or subgenre any more than I buy that of D&D. Both are quite flexible systems driven by many of the same underlying mechanics, but they have limitations. However, the limitation being cited here isn't one of them. I think D&D is actually better at emulating the range of 'gritty realism' to 'epic demi-god like power' than M&M. M&M is really skewed toward doing the upper end of that (and it probably does the upper end of that even better than D&D).

 

[gamerprinter]

I used to agree with this before I branched out into different rpgs. To some extent I still do agree with it - you can tell any story you want, but I also disagree with it.

Honestly, I've played over 25 different RPGs in the last 30 years, most of the not D&D between 1981 and 1989, however I started with D&D and since 1989, stuck with D&D. But its not due to not trying other systems, I've already done that. And not that D&D is the best, but I couldn't get my current players to try another game. They've got too much invested in 3x to switch.

So in trying to play different games, we've stuck with the D&D rules and had no problems whatsoever. Could another ruleset work better? Certainly, it its not such problem to have to use another.

GP

 

[Celebrim]

Eragon is something I don't see the D&D system handling very well. Same would go for Dragonriders of Pern. Heck, I'd love to do a How to Train Your Dragon campaign with my kids. Without heavily modifying the game, I don't see 1st level characters running around with the likes of full-blooded draconic companions.

The thing to keep in mind when looking at stories the ones you site, or Transformers, or any Anime featuring mechs, is that the story itself largely seems to ignore the effects of scale. Although you have characters who exist at several different scales, the story tends to ignore the realistic effect of 100 lb preteen interacting with a 40 ton mech, robot, or dragon and instead treats the two characters as effectually near peers. If you keep that in mind, you realize that very little is actually needed to emulate the story.

The problem people get into here is that they try to come up with mechanics for emulating not the story, but the described world of the story. They are then astounded when the resulting mechanics don't actually result in the story they are familiar with. But this shouldn't be surprising. If you try to emulate the described world of comic books, rather than the stories of comic books, you end up with very different mechanics and results. D&D does a very good job at emulating a broad range of stories because its mechanics are fundamentally abstract. The fact that it it doesn't emulate the specific described worlds is one of its strengths.

Harry Potter is another series that I've seen people want emulated by the D&D rules, but which I haven't seen a good result from.

Harry Potter describes a world of pervasive low level magic that appears to carry no costs. People with sufficient skill and natural ability can cast spells basically at will. D&D up until 3e sucks at this, because D&D allows for big story changing effects, but it constrains how often you use them. D&D 4e however reverses the games usual strengths and focuses on allowing pervasive low level magic, and should be an adequate vehical for Harry Potter.

Harry Potter though, I should say, is going to be a very very hard system to game because most everything that happens in it happens with 'the power of plot', whereas D&D tries to be more simulationist. While you could do Harry Potter with a 4e system, for 'characters have the power of plot' story, you'd probably be even better off going to a strongly nar system. I'd probably be adopting a system similar to 'Dogs in the Vinyard' or some other indy game.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Rubbish.

Yeah, the "No, you are!" method has a certain. . . charm, I suppose. Perhaps. But still. Surely you could do better. Let's see. . .

For example, in the 'Lord of the Rings' -- snip --

Oh dear, oh dear. No, methinks I'll be waiting for The One Ring to come out this year, thanks anyway. D&D cannot do it properly. Which is self-evident, if one has read LotR and played D&D at any stage.

It's obvious to me that we aren't going to see eye to eye on this.

That's not the problem here, but anyway. . .

M&M is a great system, but I don't buy that it's capable of emulating every genre or subgenre any more than I buy that of D&D.

I did say "NEARLY any [. . .]" (emphasis added for emphasis). But that aside, once again, if you've actually played (or hey, even *read*) M&M, and actually played D&D (any edition). . . just no. On the internet alone are thousands upon thousands of character builds - not to mention rules tweaks, but never mind those for now - for just about any genre, subgenre and character archetype you care to name, for M&M 2e. Please do find - or build! - the same for D&D (any edifion). Good luck with that!

Both are quite flexible systems driven by many of the same underlying mechanics, but they have limitations. However, the limitation being cited here isn't one of them. I think D&D is actually better at emulating the range of 'gritty realism' to 'epic demi-god like power' than M&M. M&M is really skewed toward doing the upper end of that (and it probably does the upper end of that even better than D&D).

If you've ever played M&M at a low, or even low-ish, Power Level, you'll know just how gritty it is. Use just one of the official, printed supplements, and it can a HELL of a lot more so. But you needn't go that far. RAW, corebook only, it does it rather convincingly. I know this from direct experience. And on the high end, wow. D&D doesn't even come close to that level of sheer power, should you want that in your campaign. World-shattering, etc. - you name it, you can pretty much do it.

Hilarious.

Cheers!

 

[Hella_Tellah]

What stories can't D&D do well?

Any story that isn't explicitly about being awesome. You could never reproduce When Harry Met Sally with D&D. You couldn't do Animal Farm, or Maus, or The Metamorphosis. It has a lot of bells and whistles and lever to pull, and you can mod it out in a number of ways, but it's still, at it's core, a game of adolescent male fantasy. You can make it run any number of fantasy settings that focus on characters rising to some sort of challenge and going on grand adventures, but step off that rather narrow path, and it just doesn't bend that way.

What stories can't RPGs do well?

They aren't good at introspection, or internal conflict. You'd be hard-pressed to run a game about a shy man overcoming his social anxiety to become a Nobel-prize winning neuroscientist, or a story about reconciling with the fact that your 20s are over. You could do it by way of allegory, but it's just not feasible to do internal conflict directly in an RPG.

I'd dearly love to be proven wrong, though.

 

[gamerprinter]

Any story that isn't explicitly about being awesome. You could never reproduce When Harry Met Sally with D&D. You couldn't do Animal Farm, or Maus, or The Metamorphosis. It has a lot of bells and whistles and lever to pull, and you can mod it out in a number of ways, but it's still, at it's core, a game of adolescent male fantasy. You can make it run any number of fantasy settings that focus on characters rising to some sort of challenge and going on grand adventures, but step off that rather narrow path, and it just doesn't bend that way.

What stories can't RPGs do well?

They aren't good at introspection, or internal conflict. You'd be hard-pressed to run a game about a shy man overcoming his social anxiety to become a Nobel-prize winning neuroscientist, or a story about reconciling with the fact that your 20s are over. You could do it by way of allegory, but it's just not feasible to do internal conflict directly in an RPG.

I'd dearly love to be proven wrong, though.

True, but who wants to play them. If the topic interests you read the book. Books don't usually translate well to games. A plot of a single individual seldom translates well to a game that a group wants to play.

I never suggested that any plot can be made into a D&D game. I'm saying an setting that is worth playing in can be done in D&D which makes for an extreme corner case.

Can a D&D game emulate some guy typing a response in a forum as playable, no, but then who wants to do that in a game...

GP

 

[Umbran]

It has a lot of bells and whistles and lever to pull, and you can mod it out in a number of ways, but it's still, at it's core, a game of adolescent male fantasy.

Adolescent, yes. Male? Well, if you want to stereotype, sure, I guess.

They aren't good at introspection, or internal conflict.

I have to disagree. The GM cannot force a player to have an internal conflict. However, if the player wants to play through internal conflict, and tells the GMs abut the nature of that conflict, the GM can aid and abet quite well.

I've got a Deadlands game running, and about half the party is working through issues of conflicting loyalties or psychological trauma - two are deserters who love their countries, but saw their military forces doing things that were just... wrong. Another is dealing with post traumatic stress and what he feels is proof of his own cowardice having broken in the face of a supernatural enemy. I'm having a great time pushing their buttons.

Overcoming social anxiety to become a Nobel prize winning neuroscientist isn't difficult to do in a game because it is an internal conflict, but because it is pretty mundane, and so is unlikely to engage any escapist fantasy desires of the player.

Mundane stuff ("Woke up, got out of bed, dragged a comb across my head...") is difficult to do well in any RPG. To engage the imagination of a player, you tend to need to be a bit extreme - you can play normal people, but you typically need to put them in extraordinary circumstances.