Legends and Lore - The Temperature of the Rules

[Crazy Jerome]

My 'reservations' about levels were only so far as to address pemerton's apparent reservation of levels for a "simulationist" D&D. Since we've already assumed (I think!) that hardcore Runequest/Rolemaster players aren't migrating to D&D for their simulationist needs, can we either dispense with referring to that system, or did you assume that any edition of 5E should give up on that kind of "pretend simulation" because you think RM/RQ has a monopoly on that playstyle?

Other way around. RM/RQ caters to people who want something more than pretend simulation. To the extent that D&D is going to be successful catering to the simulation crowd, it will be only those who favor the pretend simulation. So if 5E were to go after different audiences using your breakdown, then the "Lore" version is centered squarely on "pretend simulation".

We keep referrring to this distinction because it is important in your setup, both technically and for appeal to potential customers. That is, if the designers go to far trying to appeal to real simulation, they will cut off the ability to appeal to the "Legends" crowd, as well as those who might like the "Core" piece by itself--and not an inconsiderable number of the pretend simulation crowd, too. There are many ways to visualize this, but an easy one is "imagine D&D without levels"--which would be something like RQ or RM. Then imagine the reaction.

Some choices close off others. Saying that a 5E could cater to the pretend simulation crowd but not the purist simulation crowd makes this clear. You like some simulation in your D&D? OK, which parts are the most important, and can be reconciled with what other people want? Those are the ones you might get.

 

[pemerton]

Three clear, contradictory "ways to play the game" are far superior to one big muddled "way" that tries to cover too much ground.

I've never read the (original) Marvel Super Heroes rules, but I gather from Ron Edwards that they did what you are asking for here. The passage that he quotes is:

You can play Marvel in a variety of styles, based on whatever you're interested in. Most roleplaying games tend to fall somewhere between two styles of play that we call "Clobberin' Time" and "Power and Responsibility." And for one-on-one play, there's always "Brawling," a style unique to this game.

Power and Responsibility

... players spend a great deal of time on things like character development, morality, thoughts and goals ... They care about the other people in their lives, like girlfriends or boyfriends, aunts, sidekicks, and non-Super Hero friends. ... there's more to this style of play than busting things up.

Clobberin' Time

... players don't spend much time on their characters' lifestyles. They concentrate on action and plenty of it.

Together, the players and the GamesMaster decide what style of game they want to play. There is nothing more frustrating than a GamesMaster who runs a "Power and Responsibility" style game for a bunch of "Clobberin' Times" players. ...

Brawling

... allows players to answer age-old questions: who would win in a fight, the Thing or the Hulk? [further examples] ... two players can sit down with their characters and fight against each other without needing a GamesMaster.​

And Edwards goes on to say that:

the key point for me is that the same game system is usable alternatively for Narrativist or Gamist (or Hard Core Gamist) play, rather than simultaneously.​

So the sort of instructional text that you (CJ) are after is certainly not impossible!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Crazy Jerome , I apologize again, but the explanation is extremely dense. pretend I am a teenager. You are a marketing/sales person or my geek gaming uncle. I am impatient and want to play videogames. What are the differences between the 3 versions?

You've got a starter set, the D&D "core". It works this way. (Long-ish but simple 8th grade, newspaper style explanation of how to kick down the door, kill the monster, steal his treasure--and variations on same.)

Then you've got the "Legends" version. You play a hero from the very beginning, and you go on great quests. (Long explanation of how to drive character exploration in a gamist/narrativist hybrid. Liberal cribbing from the thoughts in several modern games would be useful here. For example, you can explain "Say Yes or Roll the Dice" in one page, complete with examples, in a way that any moderately intelligent 12-year old that wants to play this way can get it.)

Finally you've got the "Lore" version. You play a character that may start out as a farm kid, but goes on adventures, explores the world, and learns something about how it all fits together in the process. (Long explanation of how to explore a world and character themes, include backgrounds, and other story-teller/gamist/simulation conceits. I'm sure by now someone can write very clearly on "Gygaxian Naturalism," though I ain't that guy.)

The latter two probably shouldn't be written in the 8th grade newspaper style, because part of the charm of 1e was that Gygax didn't.

 

[LurkAway]

Other way around. RM/RQ caters to people who want something more than pretend simulation. To the extent that D&D is going to be successful catering to the simulation crowd, it will be only those who favor the pretend simulation. So if 5E were to go after different audiences using your breakdown, then the "Lore" version is centered squarely on "pretend simulation".

If RQ/RM is hardcore simulation of fantasy (say like airplane simulation videogames) then I don't think it's a useful definition for our purpose. I don't think WoTC is trying to capture that market at all. I think most people use simulation to mean "pretend simulation". I think you've defined the word too narrowly. S'mon and others use it very loosely and I think that's the way to go. I would like to use "simulationist" in a colloquial sense. In general, I would like to stop getting hung up on definitions, it's starting to hinder more than help, I think. Sorry

 

[LurkAway]

You've got a starter set, the D&D "core". It works this way. (Long-ish but simple 8th grade, newspaper style explanation of how to kick down the door, kill the monster, steal his treasure--and variations on same.)

Core as an intro boxed set or optional starter set or something like that sounds fine. I think once you make it bigger than that, it causes product line confusion. I think the Core could also advertise Lore vs Legends and ask 'which kind adventure you will go?'

 

[S'mon]

Other way around. RM/RQ caters to people who want something more than pretend simulation. To the extent that D&D is going to be successful catering to the simulation crowd, it will be only those who favor the pretend simulation. So if 5E were to go after different audiences using your breakdown, then the "Lore" version is centered squarely on "pretend simulation".

I know what you mean, I think - but 'pretend simulation' kinda implies that Runequest with its Platonic success chances, characters who can never survive more than 2-3 hits to the chest if unarmoured, and melee hit location randomly determined*, is somehow better/more realistic than 3e D&D. In terms of process modelling, I don't think it is. In terms of results modelling, though, by focusing on average/normal outcomes - get stabbed three times in the chest, on average you're dead - it does give a more realistic 'feel'.

*On a chart which seems to model dark ages axe & shield warriors hacking at each other face to face. Good for that, not so good if you're sneaking up on someone to stab him in the back with your spear.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If RQ/RM is hardcore simulation of fantasy (say like airplane simulation videogames) then I don't think it's a useful definition for our purpose. I don't think WoTC is trying to capture that market at all. I think most people use simulation to mean "pretend simulation". I think you've defined the word too narrowly. S'mon and others use it very loosely and I think that's the way to go. I would like to use "simulationist" in a colloquial sense. In general, I would like to stop getting hung up on definitions, it's starting to hinder more than help, I think. Sorry

Well, I don't like it that "narrative" has been co-opted because of Forge channeling of an obscure, narrow literary conceit that only tangentially applies to roleplaying games. But we're stuck with it, and nothing much we can do about it. And if "story" has to be defined before two gamers can talk about whether a system support their idea of story or not, I'm fairly certain that "simulation" isn't far behind.

There's too many people whose argument boils down to, "if you'll just do X this way, then it will be simulate the game that is best, most immersive, most real, etc," as if "model a process" was a first-order, always wonderful method of doing anything in a game, minus any playability concerns. That is, make a playable simulation, and you've achieved defacto Nirvana. And it is pretty amazing the lengths some people will go to make playable simulation with classes and levels when the classes and levels are the primary things in their way.

You are welcome to keep telling me what to say, or how to say it, but it isn't going to get you anywhere.

 

[LurkAway]

You are welcome to keep telling me what to say, or how to say it, but it isn't going to get you anywhere.

That's fine, I won't force you, but if threads are co-opted by academic game designers/engineers that wax verbosely and densely about Forge GNS theory or whatever it is and argue a lot about hardcore definitions, which for people like me is a hindrance to fun brainstorming, then the thread will quickly contain only you and pemerton

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I know what you mean, I think - but 'pretend simulation' kinda implies that Runequest with its Platonic success chances, characters who can never survive more than 2-3 hits to the chest if unarmoured, and melee hit location randomly determined*, is somehow better/more realistic than 3e D&D. In terms of process modelling, I don't think it is. In terms of results modelling, though, by focusing on average/normal outcomes - get stabbed three times in the chest, on average you're dead - it does give a more realistic 'feel'.

*On a chart which seems to model dark ages axe & shield warriors hacking at each other face to face. Good for that, not so good if you're sneaking up on someone to stab him in the back with your spear.

No, not perfect by any means. But in terms of, play the characters as written, and extrapolate from what those characters (and NPCs and creatures) to what is possible in the world, without winking and nodding at every turn--I'd say that RQ mechanics do a better job of modeling the processes contained in the RQ text than 3E does of modeling the processes contained in the 3E text. In fairness, of course, 3E is trying to do two or three things at once, and isn't fully committed to process modeling, and this makes the effort more complicated than a game like RQ.

For that matter, something like GURPS or Fantasy Hero will give you better process modeling results, overall, than 3E. (There are niche exceptions which will probably be wildly out of sync, and will need to be squashed hard, such as a FH 150 point "warrior/mage" with blinding/enhancement magic.)

However, the "pretend simulation" term isn't perfect, either. How would you describe the hard limits that exist on process modeling simulation in a game that needs to be recognizably D&D (i.e. classes, levels, relatively wide power ranges, etc.)?

 

[S'mon]

No, not perfect by any means. But in terms of, play the characters as written, and extrapolate from what those characters (and NPCs and creatures) to what is possible in the world, without winking and nodding at every turn--I'd say that RQ mechanics do a better job of modeling the processes contained in the RQ text than 3E does of modeling the processes contained in the 3E text.

I'm not sure what you mean by "modeling the processes contained in the RQ text ". But I agree that playing a PC in Runequest can give a strong feeling of 'being there' - much stronger than I've ever had playing any edition of D&D. It's the most potentially immersive system I know.

And I think we agree that immersion-uber-alles cannot and should not be the design goal of D&D. To make it so, you'd have to gut what makes D&D, D&D.