The D&D Experience (or, All Roads lead to Rome)

[NoWayJose]

With apologies, but, could I change that last bit from "nakedly obvious mechanics first" to simply transparent and unapologetic?

Because, honestly, I think that's a major sticking point with some people.

Sure, but you know how when you're playing an RPG video game and your character comes up to some boulders at the edge of the screen? No matter how much you climb and jump, your can never, ever pass that barrier. Now I don't fret over that limitation, because I know I'm playing a software game and there's nothing on the other side. So I appreciate the visual barrier and not just a cheesy 'you have reached the end of the universe' fence, but there's no BSing that the barrier exists, first and foremost, to delineate the play area. The boulders are simply a facade.

Well, that's a video game...

In a tabletop RPG, I don't want the naked underpinnings of the game thrust into my face. It makes it feel like a video game or board game. It may be "honest" in its transparency, but it distracts from my immersion, from the versimilitude (as you've already acknowledged to Nagol) and worst of all, it often sets arbitrary limits on the narrative (as described in previous pages -- you disagreed, indicating that the end result is often the same but I challenge that there are too many contrary examples).

Note that I don't have a problem with something like hit points. As an abstract measure of physical wounds, stamina, willpower, luck, and heroism, there need be no incongruity with fictional narrative and versimilitude, because it's flexible and accomodating enough to allow for almost any in-game narrative. I only have a problem with the other nakedly gamist mechanics that are incongruous with in-game potential and enforce arbitrary limits that make no fictional sense.

 

[Lalato]

Note that I don't have a problem with something like hit points. As an abstract measure of physical wounds, stamina, willpower, luck, and heroism, there need be no incongruity with fictional narrative and versimilitude, because it's flexible and accomodating enough to allow for almost any in-game narrative. I only have a problem with the other nakedly gamist mechanics that are incongruous with in-game potential and enforce arbitrary limits that make no fictional sense.

But... every version of D&D has something like this. You've just decided that the version you like does it in a way that you can accept. That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that you're still playing D&D... or that I'm still playing D&D with some other version. I fail to see how the incongruity you describe due to mechanics somehow makes the overall experience of D&D less universal. In fact, I would say that since it's something that happens in every version, that it's probably part of the mythical soul of D&D.

 

[NoWayJose]

But... every version of D&D has something like this. You've just decided that the version you like does it in a way that you can accept. That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that you're still playing D&D... or that I'm still playing D&D with some other version. I fail to see how the incongruity you describe due to mechanics somehow makes the overall experience of D&D less universal. In fact, I would say that since it's something that happens in every version, that it's probably part of the mythical soul of D&D.

To clarify, there is no single version of D&D that I "like" as being even close to perfect, only that 4E bothers me for being gamist. Also, I never claimed that any older edition has more "soul" than 4E (I'm keeping my personal opinion to myself), but in all fairness, there has been a confusing mismash of posts so far by different authors all arguing from different angles.

 

[Hussar]

Pawsplay - I'm not sure if your example fits your idea of "a lot of adjudication". You're positing a pretty corner case example, although one that can come up, and calling that a lot of adjudication. How often does a PC ready an action against an opponent with a 15 foot reach? I'm going to say that's not a frequent occurance, certainly not something that's going to come up all the time.

Although, your point is well taken. Heck, the whole "go swimming in lava" thing irks some people to no end, despite the fact that, well, how often does lava actually feature in a D&D game...

RC - I was cogitating your Human Torch example and I realized something. Both approaches can give the same results and frequently will. For example, in your example, the Fiction First ruling is that the Human Torch goes out if he's doused in water because that speaks to a certain level of verisimilitude. A Mechanics First approach could come up with the same result, although for different reasons - The Human Torch's power's are pretty powerful - flight, including extremely fast flight, nova blast, the ability to turn off his powers, etc - so the water limitation is simply a balancing element to bring it in line with the rest of the Fantastic Four.

Conversely, you could argue that lots of things actually do burn underwater, so, why not the Human Torch? So, you have a Fiction First approach that lets him burn underwater, for a certain level of verisimilitude, and a Mechanics First approach that says that his powers are in line with the rest of the FF and thus don't need to be restricted.

Granted, this doesn't cover lack of oxygen - but then, dying from lack of oxygen is likely a bigger worry than not being able to light a fire.

My point is, just like the thread title says, if all roads lead to Rome, does it matter how you got there? And, beyond that, even if it does matter, can you tell the difference after the fact?

Are the Human Torch's limitations fiction first or mechanics first? I don't know. You can make a pretty good argument either way. AFAIC, since it could go either way, what difference does it make?

In other words, I don't really care about how you got to the end point, it's the end point that matters and since you cannot reverse engineer the decision process after the fact, it doesn't really matter.

 

[pemerton]

I find your question perplexing, to be honest.

<snip>

But when I have 3 "jump" cards (as per the highly theoretical example being referenced, although I admit it's a terrible example for carrying the entire weight of this argument), where the number 3 is based on codified metagame priorities with no direct fictional correlation, and I have to reverse-engineer that into a plausible narrative (every single time, I may add, for every single incident of every single metagame rule), then how can it be anything but half-baked?

I don't mind your "jump card" example at all. It boils things down nicely. But I don't see why you say it would have to be half-baked.

I mean, maybe it will be half-baked because no one at the table has the energy or enthusiasm. When the polearm fighter in my game uses Come and Get It I'm generally able to say something about deft halberd work and then move on with things - there's no greater need to dwell on it than on what goes on when the archer-ranger shoots four arrows in 6 seconds (Twin Strike + action point + Twin Strike). Of course, sometimes it comes up - perhaps there's a 10' pit between the fighter and one of the targets of Come and Get It, in which case deft footwork on it's own mightn't do the job. Sometimes something more elaborate is canvassed, sometimes we fudge it a bit and move on.

But when resolving a skill challenge, for example, where each new skill check requires the player to understand the evolving situation with which s/he is engaging, then being clear about what is happening in the fictional situation is pretty important. And as GM I try pretty hard to make it clear and evocative. I don't think I'm superlative by any means, but I think it's often at least a little more than half-baked.

As to the Jump card - maybe one time the player describes a gust of wind. Another time powerful muscles. Another time nature spirits help carry the PC over the gap (a la BMX Bandit and the summoned angels). There's stuff here for the GM to hang complications on - especially if the player is somewhat consistent in how s/he narrates what is going on. I don't see this as half-baked at all - to me it looks like playing an RPG!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As for seeking the soul of D&D. That's part of what I was describing. The soul of D&D doesn't have to be something super specific. It can be universal... but it seems that some people don't want to accept that for some unknown reason. Everything needs to be super-defined to the nth degree... just so they can say... "Ha! This version is NOT D&D!"

As I said upthread, my soul is unique to me, as is the soul of each poster is unique to them. If presented with 2 things designated souls, you find yourself unable to distinguish between them, then you are not truly perceiving souls.

That's not about "super-definition," that's proper identification.

It's not about some kind of "gotcha!" moment. If you can't distinguish between the "soul of D&D" and the "soul of Harn," then you are not looking at the "soul" of either. At best you might be able to say you've seen the "soul of FRPGs."

 

[pemerton]

Primarily fiction-first since the resolution was an adjudication of what effect the in-game object expression would have on other in-game objects that was not supported by the base rules.

Fiction-first/rules-based/meta-game don't necessarily share the same axis as narrative-first since the the former are methods for the group to adjudicate in-game result and the latter is a method of injecting new situations into the game environment.

Thanks for the reply.

This, plus another conversation we had (on which thread? they all blur together!) about metagaming fighters versus non-metagaming wizards in 4e, is making me think more about that aspect of 4e. I've never been of the view that "all 4e classes play basically the same", but I think I'm getting a clearer sense of one further respect in which they differ.

Combining this (inchoate) thought with my response to your lightning bolt example: the player of a wizard in 4e has both a certain number of "metagame tokens" - eg when they use lightning bolt underwater they are entitled to play a "metagame token" to ensure that the spell behaves as per its rules parameters, getting to narrate (or have the GM narrate) what it is about the fictional situation that brings about this result. But the player of the wizard also has fictional tools to leverage, as in my Twist of Space example.

The player of the fighter - depending somewhat on build - probably leverages more metagame tokens more often (did anyone say "Come and Get It") but has, on the whole, fewer fictional levers. Especially because the fighter is less likely to have access to skills like Arcana and Religion, that tend to provide open-ended fictional levers when compared to skills like Athletics and Endurance.

So maybe wizards still are king in 4e! (Hopefully I'll be getting more experimental data this Sunday.)

 

[pemerton]

For instance, in almost any game system every published, a fiction-first approach will yield more easily adjudicated results than a rules-first approach when a normal human is at ground zero of a nuclear blast. It is likely to be uncontrovertible that someone at ground zero is dead. Attempting to use any mechanical system to determine that fact, however good the mechanics are, opens up the possibility of ambiguity, however small that possibility.

Just for the record - in Andy Slack's "Expanded Universes" supplemental rules for Traveller in an early White Dwarf, the nuclear weapon mechanics included "ground zero: dead". I think the same is true for Meson Accelerators in Book 4: Mercenary.

More generally, the point is well-taken. The way that HeroWars/Quest responds to this issue is via the scene-framing rules - the GM has final authority over scene-framing, and if a player wants his/her PC to do something which the GM is sceptical of (such as surviving a ground zero nuclear burst) the burden is on the player to explain how this is genre-appropriate. Only once it's clear what the player envisages happening in the situation, and how it can work within the (genre-appropriate) reality of the gameworld, are the action resolution mechanics then able to be engaged.

I think that page 42 of 4e's DMG depends upon some sort of similar constraint, although the rules text doesn't clearly articulate it.

 

[Hussar]

As I said upthread, my soul is unique to me, as is the soul of each poster is unique to them. If presented with 2 things designated souls, you find yourself unable to distinguish between them, then you are not truly perceiving souls.

That's not about "super-definition," that's proper identification.

It's not about some kind of "gotcha!" moment. If you can't distinguish between the "soul of D&D" and the "soul of Harn," then you are not looking at the "soul" of either. At best you might be able to say you've seen the "soul of FRPGs."

While there may be fifteen bajillion different words that mean "a shade of red" there is actually no point where you can definitively state red becomes orange.

Does that invalidate the definition of red?

We can look at some things and definitely say, "that is NOT D&D" - If I'm playing golf for example, I'm not playing D&D. But, the closer we get to the point where we're sitting around a table pretending to be a fictional character in a fantasy world, those lines get a whole lot blurrier.

 

[Lalato]

OK. So why argue about the so called gamist aspect of 4e in this thread at all? This thread, from what I've gathered, is about what is universal to all versions of D&D. Not what is different about each version.

For some reason people decided that instead of picking out the thousands of things that are similar across all versions of D&D and the experience of playing D&D they would rather point out the things they don't or do like about version x or version y.

I guess that's fine in a thread about the differences between each version. But why bother in a thread that is about the similarities? I acknowledge that you have preferences for the style of play that you enjoy. I acknowledge that you have preferences for the way you adjudicate things in your game. I have preferences too. Now lets talk about what is similar between your style and mine.

I think that was part of the intent of the OP. Unfortunately, it seems to have devolved into a competition on how to define some very specific thing that is D&D. Or some esoteric conversation about how version x does this and I don't like it. To that I say... poppycock! There are a thousands of things that make up what is D&D. And you know what... it's OK if some or even most of them happen to also define some other activity or other game. It's also OK if some things are different between versions.