Doing it wrong Part 1: Taking the dragon out of the dungeon

[Neonchameleon]

That's a little cryptic for me at the moment - of the various things being done (by 4e players, by WotC, etc) which ones did you have in mind?

I was using the metaphor in the OP. 4e was designed to fulfil the promise of e.g. the Red Box of high adventure and does it at the const of dungeoncrawling.

The bottom line is that Gygax and Arneson were tactical gamers and buffs for fantasy and historic medeival military action. They had a strong simulationist streak, and thought of heroes in battlefield terms.

Variously yes, no, yes. Gygax wrote against simulationism (or realism) and hit points are an inherently unrealistic thing designed to model Erol Flynn style swashbuckling.

Thus the importance of armor, the emphasis on the difference between different types of equipment and weapons, and the wear and tear of hit points.

1 out of 3 this time. Hit points are in no sense simulationist and Gygax wrote at length to this effect. And the division between weapons and even armour is spurious and ahistorical; Plate Mail doesn't exist (if you're talking about Mail you're talking about Chain) and the entire appendix on polearms is pure overspecification of differences that didn't matter.

Designers with more background in another period might have put less emphasis on armor and weapons, and more on tactics and formation.

There was quite a lot of tactics and formation in early D&D - but small unit formation was things like testudos with wizard at the centre and worked physically. They dropped out when hirelings did, and morale rules went too.

 

[TerraDave]

Interesting.

As some have touched on, this is a dichotomy that goes back a long ways...and in late 1E and 2E the split-personality could seem extreme...a game about fighting monsters and taking there stuff...where we traipse about the plains having philosophical conversations with godlings (for example).

Its important to note, just so its out there, that the early gamers had characters they where attached to (their names are in spells and other places) and they ran in a much more story oriented (and power gaming) style then many of their followers. They did not run "by the book". (they also didn't run their RPGs like their wargames, though again you might not know it from the 1E books).

And the 1E DMG talks about things like the ongoing campaign and the need for overarching themes and what now might be called story to emerge.

BUT, why did 3E (and 4E and Next for that matter) go "back to the dungeon" after all the push for more story oriented play in the 80s and 90s? Why are old dungeon crawls still rated as the most popular adventures?

The reason is that it is a style of play that works. D&D is not about 1 person telling a story, nor is it (normally) a 1 on 1 game. Its about how can a group of people can do things interesting things together in a fantasy adventure context...and the DM can run the game without going crazy.

The dungeon allows for a lot choice on the players part (or should), but in a way the DM can prepare for. It also allows for cooperation, especially combat. And the focus on problem solving and avoiding death and getting treasure nicely wire together the key incentive mechanisms that many many games have copied.

D&D mixes gambling & puzzles with popular fantasy motifs and you get to play archetypes while doing it. Whats not too love!

But some story is ok to.

 

[the Jester]

Remove the story, and D&D becomes nothing more than Diablo. Or, indeed, those D&D boardgames.

Uh, no. Not only no, but that is a pretty insulting statement to those of us that have a strong-with-the-roleplay-but-NO-STORY style of game.

I disagree. That's what happens if you remove both the interaction and the exploration phase, and play only a series of combat (note that Diablo HAS a story to unfold, but it has no interaction because you cannot affect it, and it definitely has no exploration).

Bingo. I'm beginning to think that people here are conflating "story" with "everything but combat".

 

[TerraDave]

"Story" can also mean overarching themes or links across the campaign. Sometimes also know as "plot".

 

[Starfox]

I was using the metaphor in the OP. 4e was designed to fulfil the promise of e.g. the Red Box of high adventure and does it at the const of dungeoncrawling.Variously yes, no, yes. Gygax wrote against simulationism (or realism) and hit points are an inherently unrealistic thing designed to model Erol Flynn style swashbuckling.1 out of 3 this time. Hit points are in no sense simulationist and Gygax wrote at length to this effect. And the division between weapons and even armour is spurious and ahistorical; Plate Mail doesn't exist (if you're talking about Mail you're talking about Chain) and the entire appendix on polearms is pure overspecification of differences that didn't matter.There was quite a lot of tactics and formation in early D&D - but small unit formation was things like testudos with wizard at the centre and worked physically. They dropped out when hirelings did, and morale rules went too.

Well, Gygax might have felt he did a big disservice to simulationism when he introduced hit points, but that only shows his position on the simulationism scale (between pole arms and hit points). Both of these are astronomically high simulationism values if you compare to the Maid RPG's take on combat. In maid, all combat equipment is strictly Fluff, a giant robot has the same combat value as a broom (that is, none), and the difference between an attack and a feint is what attribute you roll against.

 

[the Jester]

"Story" can also mean overarching themes or links across the campaign. Sometimes also know as "plot".

Sure. But sometimes there are no overarching themes or links, no plot, yet the game still includes tons of not-combat stuff.

For example, maybe the party chooses to go to a new area and talk to the locals. Maybe they spend 3 sessions in a high society party that they weasel an invitation to, only to board a ship and sail to a faraway land the next session. Maybe none of this is planned by the dm. No "story" is planned, it emerges from the actions of the pcs. There's no pre-planned plot- the dm didn't have a single bit of this planned or anticipated, he's winging it.

It sounds like some folks here ("remove the story and D&D becomes nothing more than Diablo") would claim that this isn't D&D, but to me, this is exactly what D&D is about. It's not everything D&D is about- there's combat, looting, etc- but the combat and looting are no more essential to D&D than the high society ball. D&D is what you make it; the story of the game, for me, is what you tell after it's all over, not what the dm tells his girlfriend in advance because that's how it's going to go, regardless of player agency. (Not to say that is the position of anyone in particular, but we've all seen or played in those games.)

 

[delericho]

I disagree...

Uh, no. Not only no, but that is a pretty insulting statement to those of us that have a strong-with-the-roleplay-but-NO-STORY style of game.

Hmm. You're right, of course. Somehow, what I meant to say and what I actually said were two completely different things. I do apologise.

 

[ImperatorK]

I hope the sequel will be better.

 

[Meatboy]

There was a big change in D&D - I'd say it was with DragonLance. (snip)

3E toned down the importance of story (relative to 2E) and tried to tell us that dungeon-delving was still good, solid fun. Yet characters were still important - one only needs to look at the thousands of options to customize your character to see that. 4E continued to build on that, and still stressed "character as king".

The game is no longer about throwing half a dozen characters at an adventure and seeing who survives to tackle the next "obstacle". But there is nothing wrong with this. It doesn't mean that D&D has "lost its way". It only means that those who play it have found their way - and how they want to play the game.

* As far as the designers went. There's always have been someone on the customer side whose played D&D as story-driven from the beginning.

That is a good place to show the "break". I had not considered 3/4e edition focus on the "character" while I put this together that adds yet another angle that one can come to. Though I think you might be able to consider that "story" oriented, at least in so far as story is something that can be directed by the players.

So, your issue is more with the lethality levels of the game over time, you're using "Dragons" as the proverbial "teeth" of the beast and without those teeth the game becomes less appealing.

Actually no. I don't have any issues with anything here. I was just trying to pin down a kind of disconnect in game design vs play style that I think has led to a lot of strife in the player base over the years. Early on dnd was pretty much designed for dungeon only experience, even if thats not how people played it. Today the game has never been more capable of supporting different play styles, especially more "character" or "story" oriented games. BUT now there is a group (though I suspect grognards are nothing new ) who feel that dnd is no longer dnd.

As for "dragons" I was actually using them to describe any kind of challange or obstacle that needs to be overcome. By taking them out of the dungeon the game has become far more complex as the amount of variables are far more controlable when you are working inside a finite environment like a dungeon. Having to account for these variables has led to a much more robust rule system.

I think I understand the OP concerns, but to me it's just a matter of gaming style.

An "old-school" high-lethality dungeon crawl is a very different game compared to a story arc with death immunity for the PC. There are ruleset that work better with the first and ruleset that work better with the second, but more or less I believe you can use almost every edition to play both styles, or something in between.

Personally I am a bit more concerned about the Dragon (i.e. combat) taking nowadays a large dominance in the game over the Dungeon (i.e. exploration). But that's not because of the current rules, but rather because of gaming groups tastes.

Pretty much. Far more succient than what I said. Thanks

 

[Ahnehnois]

D&D has a very strange relationship with its heritage, indeed.

As an open-ended game that is different for every group, the typical D&D game looks nothing like Gygax's original conception and has nothing to do with dungeons or dragons. Everyone has a different conception of the roles and relationships of players and DMs, as determined by the personalities of the people in the room. And yet, there are these few commonalities, classes, the magic system, the hunt for treasure, things that influence all of us, because D&D is the definitional rpg.

Personally, I think the roots of D&D aren't particularly important or desirable; and it would be nice if the hobby as a whole could move on from them.