D&D 5E Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)

[S'mon]

First a full bore gamist RPG is brown box D&D. I don't know how much more traditional you can get than that!

Braunstein was also pure Gamist.
Likewise actual military training exercises are (almost) pure Gamist, but they are also highly you-are-there immersive. "Gamist" doesn't require crunchy or abstract rules; Free Kriegspiel is rules-free (the GM adjudicates everything) and entirely Gamist. Gamism doesn't require minis, boards, and such paraphernalia either. The essence of Gamism is challenging player skill. When we face a conflict IRL, our own skill is challenged. So "You are the Russian Commander - the Germans are coming -
what do you do?" or "You are the adventurer in the dark dungeon - the goblins are coming - what do you do?" - can be entirely Gamist and entirely role-immersive. There is no conflict.

 

[innerdude]

That a combat syste, some spells, some equipment and a defined goal is very.traditional for RPGs? D&D as published remained very gamist until 2e although AD&D drifted a lot.

I don't disagree that D&D has very gamist roots, and supports gamism as an agenda.

What I'm saying is, D&D itself had no differentiation from Chainmail until "something else" got applied to it. And that "something else" was something that applied, at least in some small way, an element of continuing story and narrative, where a character's capabilities and actions carried over from one session to another, and a role for someone to perform not just rules adjudication, but create the situational "framing" according to his or her imagination.

Pen and paper RPGs MUST contain those elements to actually BE an RPG. Those are both "narrative" elements. If a GM is not performing any narrative functions, he or she is literally just a "judge," or "referee." If there's no "story," or ongoing sequence of events that have real impact on the "fiction," then D&D is, basically, still just Chainmail.

 

[LostSoul]

What I'm saying is, gamism has a place in RPGs. But an RPG only works as an RPG at all when there's something offered besides pure gamism. There HAS to be something else going on---narrativism, illusionism, sim, high concept sim.

As I understand GNS theory, Gamism is why you play. It's an "aesthetic priority". Exploration (the shared imagining of characters, setting, situation, system, and colour) is that "something else".

If you swap out Gamism for "aesthetic priority", you can see that it doesn't make sense: "But an RPG only works as an RPG at all when there's something offered besides pure aesthetic priority."

 

[dd.stevenson]

(snipped) The Forge's entire approach to gamism was telling WoD players that "What D&D players do is actually pretty cool. It's not what we want to do - but that doesn't stop oD&D and 1e from being cool at what it does. This town's big enough for all of us."

If that's what Edwards was about, then I would like to see quotes to that effect. Because everything I've read by the man--including the garbage linked by forge advocates in this thread--make it look like he has a serious problem with D&D.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm sorry but what?? Citation, proof or some evidence to support your claim that Fate is the most popular non-D&D game on the market...

It's also ridiculous to claim FATE came out of The Forge. FATE is based on the Fudge engine, which is from well before The Forge even existed. It's popular, but only in the small pond of "indie games". And, it's firmly in the "RPG" camp of things rather than the "storygame" camp.

In general, the only Forge-influenced games that had any level of success (and none can even hold a candle to even a single Pathfinder AP) are the ones that drift the furthest from being a pure storygame. The more storygame their games were, the less they sold. The more they drifted towards the D&D model, and away from the storygame model, the better they sold.

All of Edwards' own games were failures, and the peak of his influence was about a decade ago in 2004. He's failed, and shut down, and now only his cadre of cult-like followers pretend he has power in the industry anymore.

 

[Mistwell]

In all fairness, who gives a what Ron Edwards says anyway?

Indeed. The man lost, and slinked away with his tail between his legs, and is now a footnote in the history of RPGs.

 

[pemerton]

I think Edwards very much intended to include early editions of D&D in his statement, especially since until 4e D&D did not provide the type of guaranteed protagonism

It doesn't promise story either, at least until Dragonlance and then AD&D 2nd ed, and so isn't guilty of the distorting effect on the understanding of story creation that Edwards is railing against.

Edwards calls old pre-2e D&D a game aimed at "step on up Gamism" and is ok with that. It's 2e AD&D incoherence he hates - using a Gamist engine but drifting it towards simulation & dramatism.

This reminds me of the guys on therpgsite conflating Forgeists with White Wolfers as "storygamers", even though the Forge's "Story Now" was specifically a reaction against WW style "Story Already Written" Railroading. The Forgeist agenda is very hostile to something like Paizo Adventure Paths, but is fine with pure Gamist play, which is how it characterises Tomb of Horrors and suchlike Gygaxian stuff.

I agree with the first para, and am intrigued by the 2nd: that's a pretty bad misunderstanding of what The Forge is on about.

he clearly references games from the 70's... so what games are being referenced if not old school D&D and it's ilk??

I guess Runequest or some linear Traveller modules could be run that way

Runequest would be one clear example, yes: moreso than Traveller, I think - not to say that Traveller couldn't also be an example - because of its literary and mythological pretensions.

Edwards also has an apparent interest in drifted Tunnels and Trolls from that period, which might be another example. Chivalry and Sorcery, perhaps, also.

Also, the fact that Runequest is in there shows there is no particular connection between being a source of brain damage and being an admired game: Edwards clearly admires Runequest and its impact. Its just that he also has views about its limitations as a story-telling vehicle.

Of course Edwards is including D&D in his comment. I've never seen anyone attempt to pretend otherwise. He even says, in his follow-up comment to that comment, that he means "Its origins in terms of game texts are probably traceable to AD&D2". And then he mentions some other fine games, like Champions.

That The Forge hates AD&D 2nd ed was already established upthread. But AD&D 2nd ed is not exhaustive - thankfully, in my view, not even paradigmatic - of what D&D is or can be. And it certainly isn't a game from the 70s.

Edwards's attitude to Champions (first published 1981) is similar to his attitude to Runequest: admiration as well as critical awareness of what he sees as its limitations.

In all fairness, who gives a what Ron Edwards says anyway?

I wonder if you add up the "success" he had as a designer and compair it to the worst or least succesful D&D or OWOD what that would look like..

I give a toss what Ron Edwards says. Reading his essays and reviews has been the single most useful thing I've read to support my RPGing. (Second best would be Luke Crane's Burning Wheel books.)

I don't own and have never played Sorcerer (his best known game) but plenty of people (including posters on ENworld) have played and admired it. Ken Hite - hardly an RPG ignoramus - lauded it. A Sorcerer upgrade kickstarter around a year ago, with a $5,000 goal, raised $26,792 - I personally wouldn't regard that as a failure.

Not to mention, commercial success is not the only - not even the usual - measure for cultural importance and impact. Besides the impact I already mentioned upthread, [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] has reminded me that I left out Dungeon World, and has also pointed to a Fate-Forge connection of which I was unaware (and apparently [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] also).

Frankly, the only RPGers who have anything to fear from the wrath of the Forge are those who like AD&D 2nd ed and White Wolf et al-style "storytelling" play based around illusionist GMing that creates (in Edward's opinion, at least) a distorted experience of protagonism. Those who are playing classic Gygaxian gamism, or who are playing "indie" style, aren't in the cross hairs at all: rather, they're the gamist and narrativist vanguard. Those playing up-front GM force Call of Cthulhu are likewise free from criticism: The Forge calls this "participationism" and puts it into roughly the same entertainment category as theatre (ie the players are pure audience, not creators at all). I think Edwards's attitude to process sim of the classic Traveller or Rolemaster variety is a bit more ambiguous - he (in my view not unreasonably) thinks it's pretty hard to pull off, and very highly vulnerable to drift - but because there is also there no false or distorted promise of story I don't think there's anything to fear from him either for lovers of this style of RPGing.

I have seen you argue along similar lines when discussing your disappointment in old school D&D not providing the type of "story" it hints at in it's opening fiction... was it Moldvay?

Yes, I have accused Moldvay of being misleading - of not being able to deliver on its promise. That doesn't mean it distorted anyone's understanding of story creationg via RPGing.

Yeah, he's not talking about pure Gamist play.

<snip>

AFAICT Ron thinks 'functional stories' require a Dramatic Premise and to conform to conventional literary structure(!) - which his Narrativism is designed to produce. Since Gamist play isn't aimed at story creation it's not relevant.

As for Moldvay, the problem is that it's a Gamist game that does not allow for the creation of the dragon-slaying scene described in the intro.

In other words, this.

So expectations vs. design not matching up (though I'm not sure whether a high enough level fighter could or couldn't pull off the type of action in the Moldvay story)... that sounds like exactly what Forge theory seems to be against

Yes, but that has nothing to do with brain damage. You can see an example of this mismatch issue if you read the thread I linked to above about LotFP. Whereas Vincent Baker is lauding the "lies" he found in LotFP, Edwards is sceptical of their virtue precisely because of the mismatch issue. But he doesn't think that the mismatch is destroying anyone's ability to create stories (which is what "brain damage" is about). He just thinks it is a recipe for social contract breakdown and for dissapointing play experiences more generally.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't believe the brain damage comment ought to be ignored though just because Edwards may have been directing his criticism at games other than OD&D. The essay essentially pathologizes styles of play and games he dislikes. Frankly it doesn't matter what game it was directed toward.

My issue with discussions involving GNS and the forge isn't that I worry about the forge 's influence or fear the spread of forge styles of play ( if it lead to games and approaches folks like that is great ). I just don't find the GNS model very useful for myself or how I approach play.

 

[pemerton]

Dungeon 155's Heathen was a rather good example of what 4e can do, if you cut out a couple fights

Agreed - both that it's a good module and that it needs some of its filler cut out.

The disjunct between 4e's assumed and optimum play styles hits
you right away if you try to follow the DMG's adventure-construction advice and example (Kobold Hall).

I have to confess I never paid Kobold Hall much attention.

the HPE adventures are terrible

P2, the Drow one, isn't hopeless. I also had some fun with H2, but it needs serious revision/adaptation.

*******************

the expectations you're outlining are unrealistic. If you're playing a roleplaying game and your expectations are centered around your mechanical effectiveness, there's something wrong, regardless of whether those expectations are met.

when talking in terms of all rpgs/settings, I think that's less true. Mostly because expectations on what "effectiveness" might mean. I think its perfectly reasonable for someone playing a Leverage game to expect that all the characters will contribute in relatively equal portion to the typical "job"

I think it would be unreasonable to read a D&D book and come to the same expectations.

Here is the introduction to D&D classes from two PHBs:

AD&D PHB pp 7, 18
[O]ne player must serve as the Dungeon Master . . . The other participants become adventurers by creating characters to explore the fantastic world and face all of its challenges . . . [E]ach charcter begins at the bottom of his or her chosen class (or profession). By successfully meeting the challenges posed, they gain experience and move upwards in power . . .

Character class refers to the profession of the player character. The approach you wish to take to the game, how you believe you can most successfully meet the challenges it poses, and which role you desire to play are dictated [sic] by character class (or multi-class). . . It is up to you to select what class you desire your character to be.

AD&D 2nd ed PHB pp 25-26
After choosing your character's race, you select his character class. A character class is like a profession or career. . . Your character is assumed to have some previous training and guidance before beginning his adventuring career Now, armed with a little knowledge, your character is ready to make his name and fortune. . .

Each character class . . . has different special powers and abilities that are available only to that class. . .

Experience points measure what a character has learned and how he has improved his skill during the course of his adventures. Characters earn experience points by completing adventures and by doing things specifically related to their class. . . When they accumulate enough, they rise to the next level of experience, gaining aditional abilities and powers.

Level is a measure of the character's power. . . Diffrent character classes improve at different rates. Each increase in level improves the character's survivability and skills.​

I don't think it's unreasonable to read the first of these and expect comparable mechanical effectiveness across different classes - the choice of class is presented as one of role and approach, not power and effectiveness.

The second extract is similar in its emphasis on class differentiation, but is more ambivalent about class power because of its reference to different classes improving at different rates - although the precise import of this is unclear. (As a new player I would definitely be inclined to ask: which class improves quickest, because I want that one! I might then be disappointed to be stuck with a thief, which I think is a hard class for a new D&D player to play effectively.)


*******************

which makes me wonder to what extent "DM fiat" is a pejorative against drama-resolution...but that's probably another rant entirely.

I missed this yesterday, but it's an interesting point.

"DM fiat" is not, itself, pejorative - it's description of a technique. But I think you are right to ask whether those who dislike it are thereby rejecting drama resolution. I think the answer is "not entirely". "Say yes or roll the dice" creates room for drama as a resolution technique: it's just that it is under tight parameters. The GM has ultimate say over genre/credibility issues, but provided a player's described action for his/her PC satisfies this threshold the GM must say "yes" or else move things away from drama to something else (fortune, if we take "roll the dice" literally) as a resolution mode.

With this in mind, I therefore think that hostility to GM fiat is not hostility to drama resolution per se, but to certain modes of drama resolution that are at odds with player protagonism.

 

[pemerton]

I don't believe the brain damage comment ought to be ignored though just because Edwards may have been directing his criticism at games other than OD&D. The essay essentially pathologizes styles of play and games he dislikes. Frankly it doesn't matter what game it was directed toward.

Who said it should be ignored?

Edwards apologised and retracted. By his own testimony, he spoke personally to John Nephew.

The pathology he was alleging was a creative pathology. He thought that certain RPGs damage, seriously and permanently, the creative capacities of those who played them. He wouldn't be the only cultural critic in the history of cultural criticism to have that sort of strong view of a cultural artefact or cultural practice that he disliked. And though he apologised for using the phrase "brain damage", with its particular pejorative connotations, I don't think he apologised for or retracted his judgement of the cultural situation he was commenting on.

Ought he to have? I think that board rules preclude expressing an opinion on that.