Legends and Lore - The Temperature of the Rules

[Crazy Jerome]

On the temperature analogy itself, my answer to how the game should be done is both ways.

The problem with the Mearls approach (show the default game as the game, then provide options) is that during design, preference is given so heavily to the default that the options become second-class pieces. Sometimes, they are mere kludges that don't work at all. Good options are built into a design from the beginning (or at least the hooks, and one or two examples to test the hook are).

The problem with the Cook approach (show the options equally, state the default) is, on the other hand, mostly in presentation. S'mon and others are entirely correct that this is a pain to read, especially for beginners. Moreover, it isn't a particularly interesting or fun way to learn a game for anyone. For example, I love the Hero System, but reading it for the first time makes the 4E PHB seem like the 1E DMG by comparison (well, almost ). The more strict Hero got about the neutral framework, the more boring it became in presentation. (In play, it is still great--once you know what you are doing.)

Ideally, from a game design/delivery perspective if not a cost/effort one, the game would be designed the Cook way, but presented the Mearls way. Playtesters would be divided into two groups, some getting one and some the other, with emphasis on the Cook way early and the Mearls way late. Some of the material in the Cook way would become the options/sidebars/appendices in the final Mearls way product.

There is almost never a problem or fuss about sidebars and options based on presentation. When people don't like them, it is almost always because the thing being presented in the sidebars does not work worth a flip.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

But I think WotC is in a hard place. If they head back towards Gygaxian gamism with a strong simulationist chassis they'll have to compete with Pathfinder. If they stick with indie-influenced 4e-ish design they'll keep getting hammered by ex-fans. And D&D has never really been a strong system for simulationist-immersionist, has it? Ars Magica, Pendragon, Runequest etc seem to do that much better.

Where are WotC going to go? And are they going to be brave enough to be up front about it, thereby in effect informing a good number of potential customers in advance that they might not like the destination?

I'd guess that WoTC will probably put their eggs in one basket, but if I was in their marketing department, ignorant of the crunchy game design challenges and just thinking theoretically, I'd suggest a dual approach:

D&D Legends
- core game
- a streamlined 4.75E
- default campaign setting like FR
- gamist/tactical/narrativist playstyle
- rules are codified by default for tight optimal focus on playstyle

D&D Lore
- mature/advanced DM/players
- a streamlined 3.75E/OSD hybrid
- default campaign setting like Greyhawk
- simulationist/immersionist or TOH-thief-on-a-rope playstyle
- sandbox/exploration-based, flexible class generation
- rules are guidelines by default

Tying the ruleset to a campaign setting is an acknowledgement that a) there are no "best" rules, just optimal rules for a certain narrative feel and fictional tropes, b) unlike a generic RPG, many D&D rules are interweaved with fiction and inform the flavor of the campaign setting and can't be cleanly disjoined. You could still swap campaign settings, of course, but Ravenloft under D&D Legends would play rather differently than Ravenloft under D&D Lore.

Not bad, though I agree with pemerton's objection that there is nothing particular advanced about the simulationist/immersionist approach, compared to other styles. Taking into account some of those crunch game design challenges, I'd divide it up:

D&D Core
- simple, basic rules that are the foundation (think RC/BECMI, but modernized)
- sandbox default here, with default world to support it

D&D Legends
- add narrativist support to the core

D&D Lore
- add simulationist support to the core

Pathfinder doesn't have a lock on simulation. They have a near lock on story-based (i.e. not sandbox) variations on adventures, and the rules that go with them, with a D&D gloss.

So the answer to the question of where WotC can go to be unique is to do sandbox well. This will have a few ancillary benefits besides the main one of focusing on something and doing it well:

1. No one else really does sandbox well. Doing it well means teaching how to do it, too, and building materials to support it.

2. Sandbox naturally lends itself to both narrative, simulation, and pure gamist approaches, or with a dash of some of each, if you prefer.

3. Some of the older gamers will appreciate some of the source materials even if they don't like any of the three system choices.

It is true that well-designed rules for the Lore crowd will take significantly more page count than well-designed rules for the Legends crowd. But that's just another supplement or two that can be sold to those that want it. Meanwhile, all three will want monsters and magic items and such, and that is not impossible to design in such a way that all three can appreciate the same materials. (You'll have to get clever with how you include the simulation elements in the monsters/magic entries, but it can be done.)

 

[LurkAway]

Not bad, though I agree with pemerton's objection that there is nothing particular advanced about the simulationist/immersionist approach, compared to other styles.

As I trained to explain... I thought that "indie/modern/gamist" design was about improving the strength of the system and reducing reliance on good experienced DMs and Mother May I in order to have a great experience. That a flexible freeform system (like 1E) doesn't include built-in railings and insulation to protect against "bad" or inexperienced DMs and unbalanced, inconsistent adjudications -- that's where the 'advanced' comes in. Perhaps there's a different word that would be more accurate.

D&D Core
- simple, basic rules that are the foundation (think RC/BECMI, but modernized)
- sandbox default here, with default world to support it

D&D Legends
- add narrativist support to the core

D&D Lore
- add simulationist support to the core

I would have agreed with you x weeks/months ago, but based on reading everyone's posts over time, I do suspect that there are irreconcilable differences even close to the core/basic level. The devil's always in the details, but it may end up that the "D&D Core" is just a dozen pages long or so, and the meat of the rules (like 3E vs 4E skills, 3E vs 4E spell systems, etc.) ends up being divied up between "Legends" and "Lore". So my thinking was perhaps it's futile to force a core baseline for everyone (assuming one is trying to capture a majority share of the market) and go the dual route. If the Core is fairly substantial but not quite robust enough to be published on its own, it can still be the same Core underneath each.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

... I thought that "indie/modern/gamist" design was about improving the strength of the system and reducing reliance on good experienced DMs and Mother May I in order to have a great experience ...

"Gamist" - putting an element into the system specifically for (presumably fun) game play, rather than to model the world, push a story, enhance drama, etc. (depending upon which design theories you want to follow or reject).

"Modern design" - sometimes has some negative connations, but is mostly, positively focused on doing a clean, thoughtful design that supports the goals that it intends. This is opposed to the early design ethos which has been characterized as, "making up some stuff that we thought would be fun"--which works great for those making it up but often loses something in translation.

"Indie" - a vague term that sometimes in design discussions is a synonym for "narrative" focus of the Forge variety, sometimes a synonym for "modern design" of a heavy focus on style, sometimes indicates the publishing model, and various other lesser connotations. Accordingly, it isn't a very useful term, and IMO, only the publishing model version makes any sense from the plain meaning of the word. And even that has gotten steadily blurred over time.

I would have agreed with you x weeks/months ago, but based on reading everyone's posts over time, I do suspect that there are irreconcilable differences even close to the core/basic level. The devil's always in the details, but it may end up that the "D&D Core" is just a dozen pages long or so, and the meat of the rules (like 3E vs 4E skills, 3E vs 4E spell systems, etc.) ends up being divied up between "Legends" and "Lore". So my thinking was perhaps it's futile to force a core baseline for everyone (assuming one is trying to capture a majority share of the market) and go the dual route. If the Core is fairly substantial but not quite robust enough to be published on its own, it can still be the same Core underneath each.

An unpublished but common core is definitely a possibility. I think in the end it would be published as the logical place for a true starter set. You are correct that there would not be much to the rules themselves, but you need examples to make it really work, and that might as well be a good, stand-alone starter set. The RC, for all its flaws, is a very good game in a single book.

As to the substantial differences, I agree that the Legends and Lore versions would have them. I do think there is a common, neutral core that is worth discussing though. But I think we've reached the point where we would need a few examples to hash out, to make further progress (i.e. we've reached one limit in ivory-tower, theory crafting.)

 

[Balesir]

I would have agreed with you x weeks/months ago, but based on reading everyone's posts over time, I do suspect that there are irreconcilable differences even close to the core/basic level. The devil's always in the details, but it may end up that the "D&D Core" is just a dozen pages long or so, and the meat of the rules (like 3E vs 4E skills, 3E vs 4E spell systems, etc.) ends up being divied up between "Legends" and "Lore". So my thinking was perhaps it's futile to force a core baseline for everyone (assuming one is trying to capture a majority share of the market) and go the dual route. If the Core is fairly substantial but not quite robust enough to be published on its own, it can still be the same Core underneath each.

I think you are right about the incompatibility; in fact, my own objection to the "advanced/mature" label revolves around this. I think the reason the idea has grown up that simulationist/immersionist play needs "advanced" DMs and "mature" players is that the D&D system is basically and fundamentally unsuited to such play. Assigning one person to essentially make up the "rules" as the play actually happens is really a poor way to regulate any sort of play, but if you start with rules fundamentally unsuited, it's what you have to do.

So, yes, I think having a "Legends" (suitable for "light" Gamist and pemerton-style Narrativist play) and a "Lore" (suitable for simulationist/immersionist play) version is a good idea; I've said as much before.

The "Lore" version, however, I can see being quite "un-D&D-like" in its own way. Most pressigly, I would suggest:

- Developing some group system for "judgement" calls, rather than relying on a single individual's taste and world-model for feasibility judgements. PrimeTime Adventures already uses such a system for more Narrativist play - players and "Director" placing "votes" based on story preferences with one card/die being drawn/rolled for each vote. Modify this for 'votes on views of "realism"/"world appropriateness" and you have a fairer and more appropriate "group world exploration" system model.

- Ditch some of the "resource pool" mechanics: hit points and "uses per day" type stuff. "Life" as a resource pool is not only "unrealistic" - it tends to make for unsatisfying and low-drama stories and situations. From the very early days, D&D contained experiments with "location hit points" (taken up in RuneQuest) that have been, in the end, complex and unsatisfying. Other systems got progressively more convoluted and fiddly; see Aftermath and HârnMaster for examples, but the return was seldom worth the cost. Only HârnMaster, in my view, hit upon the real solution. Strip away the complexities of hit location and HM has a real innovation: treat wounds as dangerous, inconvenient "embuggerances" (to borrow a term from the excellent Mr. Pratchett) that are troublesome to carry and troublesome to get rid of. This simple change in approach brings a much more immersive, elegant and dramatic outlook on injury and death, IME. Not really that useful for a gamist or heroic narrative game - but far superior for gritty, immersive games.

- Reduce, greatly, the link between "power" and "level". Bushido gives a good example of this; the pining for the 3.X D&D skill mechanisms seem to me to be wishes for just such a thing. In Bushido, the maximum level attainable is level 6. Skills work with a d20 mechanism (roll under or equal to to succeed), and a character's training and focus gives a value of 1 to 19 ; for "class skills", you add your level (giving a final value of 1 to 25). This "flattening" of the "power curve" means that over- or under-level encounters are slightly less of a problem in a "simulationist" sense. Over level encounters will still be largely unbeatable, but escape will generally be a realistic option.

Taken together, these are, I think, the sort of changes that can give satisfying "situation exploration" and "world exploration" system that does not require extensive "on the fly" judgements by a single individual to make work.

 

[pemerton]

As I trained to explain... I thought that "indie/modern/gamist" design was about improving the strength of the system and reducing reliance on good experienced DMs and Mother May I in order to have a great experience.

In my view, at least, "indie/modern/gamist" design still needs good GMing. It's just that the "goodness" of the GMing doesn't reside in being able to come up with satisfactory world-modelling action resolution mechanics on the fly, but rather being able to come up with situations that are both thematically/dramatically engaging (something the 4e rulebooks give amost no advice on) and, in a crunchy system like 4e, tactically engaging (something the 4e rulebooks give good advice on, but that many WotC modules fail to achieve).

Ron Edwards has a nice line on this:

For instance, in the Jasmine game, I scene-framed like a m*-f*. That's the middle level: situational authority. That's my job as GM in playing The Pool. By the rules, players can narrate outcomes to conflict rolls, but they can't start new scenes. But I totally gave up authority over the "top" level, plot authority. I let that become an emergent property of the other two levels: again, me with full authority over situation (scene framing) . . .

And similarly, like situational authority, content authority was left entirely to my seat at the table. There was no way for a player's narration to clash with the back-story. All of the player narrations concerned plot authority . . .

If, for example, we are playing a game in which I, alone, have full situational authority, and if everyone is confident that I will use that authority to get to stuff they want (for example, taking suggestions), then all is well. Or if we are playing a game in which we do "next person to the left frames each scene," and if that confidence is just as shared, around the table, that each of us will get to the stuff that others want (again, suggestions are accepted), then all is well.

It's not the distributed or not-distributed aspect of situational authority you're concerned with, it's your trust at the table, as a group, that your situations in the S[hared] I[maginary] S[pace] are worth anyone's time.​

Part of being a good/mature/advanced GM is being able to frame situations that are worth anyone's time.

The biggest weakness of the 4e GM guides, in my view, is that it has basically nothing to say about this. I find something slightly bizarre, for example, that the Neverwinter Campaign Guide presents it as some sort of great innovation that the campaign, as it unfolds, will reflect and in various ways depend for its development upon the backgrounds that the players have developed for their PCs. This strikes me as utterly essential to make the 4e PC build rules worthwhile - without this, what would be the point of all those pages and pages of thematic and story elements associated with classes, races and (especially) paragon paths and epic destinies?

 

[pemerton]

Why is this considered "indie"? IME this is the way it started when we learned to play...OD&D, AD&D....

I know play experience is anecdotal, but I've been playing in and around the military (DM mostly) for 26 years and met a lot of other groups...what you call "indie" I called "standard"

Not adding to the debate, just curious about YOUR viewpoint on this part of your conversation.

My viewpoint is shaped by the vibe I get of more traditional approaches - that adventures and campaign worlds can be designed independently of the choices the players make in building their PCs, that PC backgrounds are meant to remain primarily that (ie in the background), that the players having their PCs pursue goals related to those backgrounds are a secondary or "sidequest" issue in relation to the main campaign goal, which is determined primarily by the GM as part of campaign and scenario design.

Not everyone was playing the traditional approach back in the day. I started GMing in what I'm calling the modern/"indie" approach (though not with the same self-consciousness as I do now, and probably not as well either, in part because I didn't know what I was doing and in part because I didn't have a game with the tools I needed) when I started an Oriental Adventures game in 1986.

But my impression - formed back then by articles in Dragon (especially The Forum) and these days by posts on web forums like this one - is that the modern/"indie" approach remains a minority approach to D&D play.

I'm not sure of the indie label either with respect to particular styles of play. I don't see a direct correlation between play styles and whether or not a game is made by industry leaders vs independents.

"Indie" - a vague term that sometimes in design discussions is a synonym for "narrative" focus of the Forge variety, sometimes a synonym for "modern design" of a heavy focus on style, sometimes indicates the publishing model, and various other lesser connotations. Accordingly, it isn't a very useful term, and IMO, only the publishing model version makes any sense from the plain meaning of the word. And even that has gotten steadily blurred over time.

It's hard to know what label to use. Many people on these forums react badly to explicit deployment of Forge categories, and most people on these forums use "narrativist" or "story-oriented" to describe RPGing in which the story is not the immediate consequence of play but rather is predetermined by the GM thinking hard about what it should be, and then adjusting action resolution outcomes in the course of play "in the interests of the story" - whereas the point of "indie"/modern/narrativist design is precisely that applying the action resolution mechanics will produce a story without it being anyone's job to make sure that this happens. The Forge calls the former sort of GM-driven play simulationist, because it uses "simulationist" to label exploration-focused play, and the focus of GM-driven story games (from the point of view of the players) is exploring a pre-given story. In D&D terms, Planescape modules (I'm thinking especially Dead Gods and Expedition to the Demonweb Pits) are examplars of this sort of simulationism.

The games that I tend to have in mind when I use the "indie" label - but only because they're the ones I happen to know a bit about - are Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel, The Riddle of Steel, Nicotine Girls, The World, The Flesh and The Devil, and The Dying Earth. The last of these is not an indie game in the publishing sense, but demonstrates comparable design sensibilities.

 

[Hussar]

It sounds to me that a lot of people are strongly in favour of a sort of Savage Worlds approach to D&D. In SW, you have the core rules which are fairly generic, although still very strongly tied to a specific flavour - pulp action. The supplements are presented in such a way that you take the core rules, fold them a bit over and then apply them to the new setting - whether you go from underwater adventures to superheroes to space opera.

All the supplements are still thematically tied to the idea of over the top pulp action, but, you get very different games in each one.

I think this would take that idea a couple of steps further. Almost like you took the 3.5 SRD as the baseline and then presented various core rules that took that SRD document and retooled it for the new playstyle. In other words, instead of a PHB/DMG/MM, you would get a base book that would probably cover the nuts and bolts of the PHB and MM and then a series of variant DMG's depending on playstyle.

Do I have that right? It does sound very intriguing.

And, thinking about it, you could add that as a filter to the DDI quite easily. Any 5e is going to have to be DDI compliant and based strongly on the needs and wishes of the DDI community.

 

[LurkAway]

I think the reason the idea has grown up that simulationist/immersionist play needs "advanced" DMs and "mature" players is that the D&D system is basically and fundamentally unsuited to such play. Assigning one person to essentially make up the "rules" as the play actually happens is really a poor way to regulate any sort of play, but if you start with rules fundamentally unsuited, it's what you have to do.

The way I read it, it sounds like an overly black-and-white statement. The OP is exactly about adjusting the temperature of the rules and how else should it happen. If a sports game requires a referee to interpret the rules and adjudicate player behavior, that is not a "poor way" to regulate play for "fundamentally unsuited" rules -- it's allowing for the full and natural expression of human behavior within the framework of the game and recognizes that only human intelligence can referee human actions. One day, D&D will have an AI that is programmed to be flexible to the limits of human imagination and also be fair and consistent unlike any human, but until then...

- Developing some group system for "judgement" calls, rather than relying on a single individual's taste and world-model for feasibility judgements. PrimeTime Adventures already uses such a system for more Narrativist play - players and "Director" placing "votes" based on story preferences with one card/die being drawn/rolled for each vote. Modify this for 'votes on views of "realism"/"world appropriateness" and you have a fairer and more appropriate "group world exploration" system model.

My initial concern is that a) it could effectively be a vote of players (as a voting bloc) vs the DM (and not sure if that's a good dynamic to have), b) it could halt gameplay and throw people out of immersion, which a major point of the "Lore" edition (it's noteable that this mechanism is found in a narrativist game!). Personally, I'd prefer that the DM just makes a decision and go with it -- sometimes too much democracy and voting and referendums gets too messy in practice for a game IMO -- and rotate or educate the DM if it's not working out. I would use a voting mechanism as a last resort in case of bitter disagreement. To counterbalance, however, I agree with pemerton that the players need input from the game (ie., that this heavy stone door is not going to open like the average door) so that they're more in tune with what would be obvious to the PCs for better decision making.

 

[S'mon]

I find something slightly bizarre, for example, that the Neverwinter Campaign Guide presents it as some sort of great innovation that the campaign, as it unfolds, will reflect and in various ways depend for its development upon the backgrounds that the players have developed for their PCs. This strikes me as utterly essential to make the 4e PC build rules worthwhile - without this, what would be the point of all those pages and pages of thematic and story elements associated with classes, races and (especially) paragon paths and epic destinies?

I get the impression that in default 4e all that stuff is supposed to stay as background colour, with no effect on play. Players are supposed to enjoy that it says "Steelsky Liberator" or "Legendary Sovereign" on their character sheet, but then it makes zero difference to what actually happens at the table.

It does seem to me that by doing it that way the designers are throwing away a huge opportunity to create a cool game. But they offer no discernable hints that I can recall to how one might actually integrate PPs and EDs into play. They seem intended to be ignored.