Legends and Lore - The Temperature of the Rules

[S'mon]

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.)?

I like "hard limits on process modelling simulation". It's a bit of a mouthful, but it doesn't have any derogatory implicaion.

BTW this is definitely something I've come against before, back in the '90s especially I worked on lots of stripped-down RPG rulesets for the PBEM play I mostly engaged in. I often tried to have "levels & hit points" combined with "immersive simulation": it never bloody worked. Success came only when I abandoned levels & hit points and built a system from the ground up. Of course that system had its own problems - no levels to regulate balanced PC creation & control advancement! No ablative hit points to provide plot protection!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Duplicate

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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.

Yes, I think we do agree. By the "contained in the text", I mean how the fictional elements are described compared to the mechanics. For example, in RQ, if you've got an NPC blacksmith described somewhat as the stereotypical big guy good with a hammer, he will act like that guy in the mechanics. But this isn't about realism. The same thing would apply to the keets, the broo, a typical shaman, etc. The shamans really do take chances interacting with spirits, and gain their power largely from that.

This is what I think leads that immersive effect you described. There is a sense in which the mechanics and descriptive text are interchangable. The DM describes an enemy doing spirit magic, and you know what this means.

My contention about 3E/PF is that it does about as well on this front as can be done in D&D, but there is still that hard limit that causes it to fall well short of other games like RQ. 3E does a whole lot better in this respect than, for example, 2E. But then, that is a low bar on this particular discussion, when 2E is about the descriptive text getting you to miss the flaws in the mechanics.

 

[S'mon]

Yes, I think we do agree. By the "contained in the text", I mean how the fictional elements are described compared to the mechanics. For example, in RQ, if you've got an NPC blacksmith described somewhat as the stereotypical big guy good with a hammer, he will act like that guy in the mechanics. But this isn't about realism. The same thing would apply to the keets, the broo, a typical shaman, etc. The shamans really do take chances interacting with spirits, and gain their power largely from that.

This is what I think leads that immersive effect you described. There is a sense in which the mechanics and descriptive text are interchangable. The DM describes an enemy doing spirit magic, and you know what this means.

Yes, I agree.

As far as D&D goes, I don't think (although I'm not certain) this was ever a design goal, even in 3e. I think the goal in the 3e PHB was to be 'mechanically robust' in the sense of "If a PC wants to do X, here is how you adjudicate it with minimal fiat". I *think* it was never intended to be applied to NPCs (qv Profession skill - per RAW lawyers and gardeners earn the same income) acting in isolation, only for PC-NPC interaction. If that was the intent, they did a bad job.

 

[LurkAway]

@Crazy Jerome , sorry, there was something else that got under my skin yesterday...

I looked around and found various meanings and uses of "simulationist". The 2 articles so far in the Simulationist Manifesto on rpg.net, and the followup comments, don't seem to insist on a purist conception of "simulationist". There's even a comment that any system, including 4E, can be simulationist but with difficulty. The term being inherently subjective, I thought that trying to differentiate between a purist/"true" simulationism vs "pretend" simulationism was mostly academic. I'm not at all offended in any way by the distinction, I just didn't find it useful colloquially.

But here, to use the label to differentiate between RQ/RM and other systems, then ok...

I don't think that WoTC will ever chase after the hardcore/niche "true" simulationist market. I had thought that a modular 5E might be tweaked from the default to deliver a simulacrum of "true" simulationism (as I tried to brainstorm upthread) but if you say that a RQ/RM player will always consider that a "pretend" simulationism that doesn't deliver their desired playstyle, then never mind that.

However, I think WoTC can or might seek the "pretend" simulationist market, because they had it pre-4E.

Also, I think that the 3.X/PF fans are not a monochrome group. Some segment is playing PF because WoTC did not deliver a 3.75E. Some segment wish that PF was more streamlined by not trying to be backwards-compatible with 3.X (that would include me). I think they'll never go to 4E, may never try a 4.5E, may dabble but never stick with a 4.5E, but a modular 5E maybe yes.

I do agree that only a minority of D&D players are looking for deep immersion from "pretend" simulation.

And yet, Rich Baker on Rule-of-Three column has recently made several references to rules that encourage or discourage immersion. So game designers and players are seeking it to some extent. I think 4E is trying to "dabble" in immersion, perhaps moreso now than before, and I think "Legends" would be the same, but I think "Lore" could do it better.

Perhaps my miscommunication was to conflate simulationism and exploratory/sandboxy (for me, they go hand-in-hand). In my original post, I considered them compatible. So you can explore the game world through "pretend" simulationist mechanics, or you can explore the game world through the story, a flexibility which 4E doesn't and "Legends" wouldn't offer.

The beauty of that flexibility is that it can support both playstyles simultaneously. That's a precious thing to have in a small rpg market. Isn't that what 3E had going for it, in its heyday?

Sure, there may be clashes and flaws. One player explores the world by throwing his PC off the cliff because the mechanics enable his PC to survive. The simulationist/immersionist player will be aghast -- he would never explore the world by throwing his PC off a cliff.

But if you divide that system further, to spin off a simulationist edition where a player won't throw his PC off the cliff because a) he thinks the PC would die, and b) the mechanics would equally have the PC die, then you've fractured the tiny RPG market such that you've traded a gameplay problem for a bigger marketing problem (not to mention the extra time and investment). Academic game design and a publishable ruleset doesn't exist in a vacuum.

I think it might be better, then, to have a 3E-ish "Lore" edition that is compatible with both playstyles, but unlike 3E, modular rules can tweak whether jumping off cliffs will kill you or not according to the group's preferences (same goes for wizards bashing down doors or not).

(OTOH, the 'do you want/are you ready for a D&D 5th edition' thread reveals a lot of indifference, so perhaps it is too late.)

 

[Hussar]

For me, the "Core" D&D should be what you get at the Expeditions games that are run at the FLGS's It's stripped down to a pretty bare essential and, quite frankly, isn't too interested in "deep immersion" or "Character building". It's meant to be pretty beer and pretzels type gaming.

Not that it has to be that way, but that's the general thrust.

Once you get beyond that, then you can start into the different streams. But, for gods sake, make sure that that basic core WORKS first. That someone, anyone, can run a decent game right out of the box in a fairly short order.

 

[Mark CMG]

For me, the "Core" D&D should be what you get at the Expeditions games that are run at the FLGS's It's stripped down to a pretty bare essential and, quite frankly, isn't too interested in "deep immersion" or "Character building". It's meant to be pretty beer and pretzels type gaming.

Not that it has to be that way, but that's the general thrust.

Once you get beyond that, then you can start into the different streams. But, for gods sake, make sure that that basic core WORKS first. That someone, anyone, can run a decent game right out of the box in a fairly short order.

Yeah, Encounters seems to be about demonstrating the combat rules of the current system so that people who haven't played, or haven't played much, can jump into a fast game and learn a bit about what the system has to offer. It also tends to attract folks who play regularly but mostly enjoy the combat aspects of the game. I have seen other regular groups at our FLGS, though, that basically play their games in this manner as a matter of course, so if the plan is for a new player to eventually get involved with a group like that, Encounters might be all the training they need.

 

[Lanefan]

The tools in 4e that facilitiate this sort of GMing are precisly the scaled DCs, the standard damage expressions, the monster guidelines, etc. These are what give everyone at the table the assurance that an unexpected choice by the players won't suddenly bring the game to a screaming, TPK-induced halt. (Or some lesser form of game-ending disaster.)

Coming in to this really late, but:

The players have to realize (or be told up front) that their choices can and will have consequences, good or bad, depending on the situation.

If they make an unexpected choice to go fight the Undead Lord of Doom when they're still 2nd level then so be it: nice knowin' ya. By the same token, if a band of epic-level types decide to spend the day laying waste to a village of 1-HD Kobolds, so be it: they're gonna get mighty bored.

Lan-"the final score was about Night's Dark Terror 3, Players 1"-efan

 

[LurkAway]

If they make an unexpected choice to go fight the Undead Lord of Doom when they're still 2nd level then so be it: nice knowin' ya. By the same token, if a band of epic-level types decide to spend the day laying waste to a village of 1-HD Kobolds, so be it: they're gonna get mighty bored.

OOh, being inclined towards "pretend" simulationism, I love topics like this! To prove to my critics that I'm ambivalent about ALL D&D editions, here's my nuanced view for what it's worth:

Since 1E, the Undead Lord of Doom would be cloistered in Dungeon Level 5 of the Lord of Doom module for characters level 10-15. So the 10th level PCs would never have to face him until they're ready, because the players know the encounter design convention that the lowest dungeon level is the most difficult and the 'boss' fight is always at the end. In fact, the DM doesn't even purchase the Lord of Doom module until the PCs get to 10th level. Never does the DM buy a 1st level module and use it as is (without increasing encounter challenges) when the PCs are at 10th level.

So 4E recognizes what's obvious to most and explicitly takes out of the picture anything that the PCs probably wouldn't encounter anyway pre-4E. It creates a different feel though. It's like standing on a raised platform beyond which are Big Bad Things -- in 3E you see them from the platform, but they rarely come to you until you're ready, in 4E, there are soft padded walls so you can't see them at all. It's definitely not exploration based, and it feels too safe to me.

But IME pre-4E wasn't a proper sandbox game either, like Skyrim where you can wander off too far and get crushed by a wooly mammoth at 1st level. 4E is a lot more obvious about it, for better or worse YMMV.

Enworld threads make me realize that if D&D ever goes the true sandboxy route, the game system need to provide a sort of 'spidey-sense' to the players to communicate dangers that could/should be obvious in-game but which the players cannot sense due to lack of signals.

 

[Lanefan]

Since 1E, the Undead Lord of Doom would be cloistered in Dungeon Level 5 of the Lord of Doom module for characters level 10-15. So the 10th level PCs would never have to face him until they're ready, because the players know the encounter design convention that the lowest dungeon level is the most difficult and the 'boss' fight is always at the end. In fact, the DM doesn't even purchase the Lord of Doom module until the PCs get to 10th level. Never does the DM buy a 1st level module and use it as is (without increasing encounter challenges) when the PCs are at 10th level.

Well, that's fine in theory...

So 4E recognizes what's obvious to most and explicitly takes out of the picture anything that the PCs probably wouldn't encounter anyway pre-4E. It creates a different feel though. It's like standing on a raised platform beyond which are Big Bad Things -- in 3E you see them from the platform, but they rarely come to you until you're ready, in 4E, there are soft padded walls so you can't see them at all. It's definitely not exploration based, and it feels too safe to me.

Let's ignore 3e and 4e and all the other e's for a minute and take a broader view.

If the game is any kind of sandbox (which it can and should be even if the DM is trying to tell a specific story, as the players can always ignore her and go somewhere else) then there's gonna be stuff out ther you can handle and there's gonna be stuff out there you can't.

Enworld threads make me realize that if D&D ever goes the true sandboxy route, the game system need to provide a sort of 'spidey-sense' to the players to communicate dangers that could/should be obvious in-game but which the players cannot sense due to lack of signals.

And that's what the DM-as-storyteller is for*. Legends. Local chatter. Setting history. Etc. Couple that with the game at the PH level clearly warning players that there will be times when running is the best (or only) option; and they can't say they haven't been warned.
* - assuming, of course, that the players pay attention; this is not always the case.

Lan-"my game was a sandbox until they stole all the sand"-efan