D&D 5E With the Holy Trinity out, let's take stock of 5E

[Hussar]

/snip

The "whole premise" of an RPG is players can score points for their role playing in a game. That players are limited to their current creative skill marks the boundaries they have. Like people's real world strength or speed. D&D is a design test to give resistance (complex codes) to those who want to improve their actual creativity and imagination. Playing it does so like sports have designs which test and improve one's athleticism.

The GM checks the map, sees if the player's piece can perform the action according to the design, makes the movement whatever the result, and describes these results back to the player(s). That's D&D. DMs are NEVER to improvise. This is essential to the playing of an RPG. It is essential to even a game be a game.

Wow. Just wow. This is ... there are no words. How in the world do you come to that conclusion. DM's are never to improvise? Where could you possibly have come to that conclusion? That's pretty much the exact opposite of the advice given in every single RPG book ever published. This isn't a Forge thing at all. What you are describing has never, ever existed in RPG's. RPG's are all about improvising. DM's improvise all the time. They had no choice, because the mechanics certainly don't cover all sorts of actions that the players can take.

I have to ask, where are you getting this from? Can you please show me anyone, any published RPG source, that aligns with this point of view?

Because he knew none of the dice rolls in D&D were resolution mechanics. They are expressions of the game design. Randomizers aren't necessary for games which use resolution mechanics. The Jenga tower isn't a randomizer for example.

What do you think resolution mechanics mean? Character attacks orc. Rolls his d20 vs target number. Character hits or misses. That is a resolution mechanic. You are resolving the action that the player is attempting.

And, you've never played Jenga if you think it's not a randomiser. Before the game starts, when will the tower fall? On what turn will it fall? Can you even begin to predict that? If not, then it's random by definition. But, that's beside the point anyway since Jenga Tower games are a pretty small niche. You are missing the bigger point. Virtually all RPG's out there, with very few exceptions (and notable BECAUSE they are exceptions) don't use some sort of randomised resolution mechanic. Whether it's a dice pool or d20, or whatever, it's still a random resolution mechanic.

And, just to be very clear, how do you define a resolution mechanic. I feel a lot of the issues with your view point is you are taking some pretty idiosyncratic definitions of terms and that's causing a lot of confusion.

 

[Hussar]

As I said before, GURPS wasn't even considered a role playing game by the faithful or even much of a game at the time.
(But I like a lot of stuff early GURPS had in it too)

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...t-let-s-take-stock-of-5E/page16#ixzz3LkKZz3Z0

Wait, what? Who ever thought that? Which faithful? D&D player faithful? GURPS players?

The people I played GURPS with generally did so because they were more heavily into the sim end of the stick than D&D was. But, I have to admit, this is a new one. GURPS isn't a roleplaying game? Good grief.

 

[SkidAce]

Yaaaawn.

 

[guachi]

I've never met anyone who didn't consider GURPS an RPG. I've never met anyone, until now, who thought a DM was never (sorry, NEVER) to improvise. I've never met anyone, until now, who thought D&D didn't have resolution mechanisms.

Futhermore, I have no idea how to parse this sentence: "Playing it does so like sports have designs which test and improve one's athleticism"

 

[howandwhy99]

a few items...
Ron Edwards Owned the forge. It was his private property. And when the forgites started to try to ignore him, he shut down the forge as a discussion BBS.

Gamism as one of the modes of play is "I'm using the rules, realistic or not, whether they fit the narrative well or not."

As one of the design areas, it's "It doesn't need to be focused on driving the narrative, and it doesn't need to be realistic, because it's just a game artifact"... key example of gamist design space is in the AD&D combat system. It's not realistic, it makes no serious attempt to simulate, and it's not very good at promoting story; further, it has some elements that inhibit colorful descriptiveness (the abstract nature of HP, the all or nothing effects of armor, the one minute combat rounds with movement rates suited for 20 seconds)... all of which are best defended with "It's just a game"...

The truth is that GNS as absolutes don't exist in any game with a theme, let alone any RPG. But they describe a nifty design space which can be used as a triangular region to illustrate the tradeoffs in various focuses of RPG design. (Which, when mentioned on the forge, it got deleted, but not before being told by a dozen people that that was absolute crap. Funnily enough, it's a common theme on RPGGeek...)

Gaming isn't an identity through negation. "We don't seek depiction or narrative design" is Edwards refusing yet again to actually talk about games as understood for centuries. He simply refuses to treat them as a sphere of behavior and understanding we can live within. His answer is "You are ACTUALLY engaging in the act of story telling". No, you are actually engaging in the act of game play - near identical to the act of puzzle solving.

This is his major failing: he claims to know what is the actual act of humans in our world when gaming. And he makes it story telling. His premise is his conclusion.

- Do Not Trust anything in those articles to be forthright about games as historically understood.

Games are both a design outside ourselves (like a maze) and how we treat something. Life can be treated as a game. That doesn't mean we should so. Gaming a person isn't very kind for instance, but it can be done. Like gaslighting for instance.

Those articles are not the final word. They are a rejection in near entirety of everything that has been understood as games prior.

1. AD&D is a game because it is a system, a pattern players can manipulate to achieve objectives within.
2. Games don't have themes. Stories do. In general, if the language is from literary theory it isn't referring to games.

 

[howandwhy99]

But it seems to be yours.

Either the rules are relevant or they're not. If they are - which is my view - then I don't see how you can claim that you know better than Gygax and Moldvay what the game was really about.

You don't seem to wonder why D&D was made at all when a "use no rules at all and make it up game" would have sufficed. The rules are not in the books. Those are guidelines for creating a code behind the screen. Telling a referee to make stuff up makes for a bad game.

Except that players can read many of them in the PHB. For instance, p 28 describes (including a worked example) the consequences of failing a pick pocket check, which is one of the examples that [MENTION=6779310]aramis erak[/MENTION] referred to.

In the case of Moldvay Basic, it is typical for a player to have read the whole book, including the DM chapter. And of course many AD&D players have read the DMG, if for no other reason than that they also GM games of their own.

Except that the players aren't reading the rules they are reading suggestions. Those are what the DM uses to run his or her game.

You haven't answered at all. "The GM checks the map" is not an answer.

It is an answer you refuse to accept. Clearly I have answered you.

Checking the map will tell me that there is a portcullis there. On 9 maps out of 10 it won't even tell me which side of the portcullis the mechanism is on - I'll have to read the adventure text. And when I do that, it won't tell me the chances of a PC breaking the mechanism with a hammer and piton.

Similarly, the map might tell me there is a 10' wide pit, but it won't tell me whether or not a given PC can clear it in a jump.

Every DM must make a map prior to play. That's necessary to run a game. The maps on hand are not the maps one must use. They aren't even generated by the code any specific DM is using behind the screen.

Also, the notion of modules needing "converting" is not one I have encountered anywhere else, and is contrary to the general purpose for which people buy and use modules (ie to avoid creating material on their own).

This is an old idea and not unusual. Ask around.

When I asserted this upthread you denied it, describing permissible player moves as "bounded".

Read my edit in the following response.

In any event, it is true that players aren't restricted in the actions they can declare for their PCs. Hence the need for the GM to adjudicate previously unanticipated action resolutions. You have not actually given any example - either hypothetical or from actual play - of how you think this is to be done.

I have repeatedly. The DM hears the player's attempt, clarifies the move until all the aspects of it are found in the game, then moves the pieces if necessary, and describes the results back to the player. Basic stuff.

When posters talk about the need for the GM to improvise, it is this sort of on-the-fly, ad hoc adjudication that they have in mind.

 

[Hussar]

Every DM must make a map prior to play. That's necessary to run a game. The maps on hand are not the maps one must use. They aren't even generated by the code any specific DM is using behind the screen.


Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...t-let-s-take-stock-of-5E/page17#ixzz3Ln8h4ax8

Wait, what? You must make a map prior to play. But, you don't have to use those maps. What? If I don't have to use the maps that I make prior to play, why do I have to make a map? Why can't I generate a map during play - I've got these nifty random dungeon generators right there in the AD&D DMG after all.

 

[howandwhy99]

Wow. Just wow. This is ... there are no words. How in the world do you come to that conclusion. DM's are never to improvise? Where could you possibly have come to that conclusion? That's pretty much the exact opposite of the advice given in every single RPG book ever published. This isn't a Forge thing at all. What you are describing has never, ever existed in RPG's. RPG's are all about improvising. DM's improvise all the time. They had no choice, because the mechanics certainly don't cover all sorts of actions that the players can take.

I have to ask, where are you getting this from? Can you please show me anyone, any published RPG source, that aligns with this point of view?

This is the heart of D&D as it was designed. It's also at the heart of enabling players to game D&D as a game, not engage in a collaborative story creation. If you don't know it, that's fine. It was word of mouth when I grew up in the 80's and the expected act of play by DMs and players. It begins with understanding role playing wasn't understood as improvisation and that games weren't about improvising either. I don't believe you know your history and going off what you believe is roleplaying from the past 20 years or so. All of the countless creation of books and modules weren't published in order to make a "no pre-existing material necessary" improv game. That's a hole in design, not proof of status as an "RPG" (aka storygame).

I am providing proof to your questions. How could publishing Vampire the Masquerade be so nose snubbing to the whole hobby in 1990 when it titled its game a "storytelling game" if, as from your point of view, all games were about improvising collectively? Why was there such a collective uproar from the D&D crowd? Because playing a game isn't storytelling to begin with.

What do you think resolution mechanics mean?

Two or more people tell a story. It doesn't matter if these are designer storytellers, "GM" (story leader) storytellers, or player storytellers. They are necessarily in conflict (as the theory goes). A mechanic is used like dice or rock-scissors-paper to determine whose story is used in the larger story (that "game" is often used is a misnomer). The conflict is "resolved". Needless to say none of this actually occurs in a game.

These are conflict resolution - Edwards' narrative resolution mechanics. Narrative is always what is going on in his theory because he doesn't believe in games or game play, only story telling. His theory is the seemingly endless act of usurping the terms of the prior with the latter. He and his faithful are openly revolutionaries. How then can his theory be "the way everyone has always thought it was done"?

Actual game mechanics are the rules realized, the pattern. Dice are rolled to realize a result inherent in their design, the odds. They do not resolve conflicts between players. They express results of a the code they are used to represent. Usually a game's code is created by a designer. In the case of D&D and Mastermind the code is created by a referee prior to play behind a screen. And yes, it must never be changed after play begins so players can actually game it.

And, you've never played Jenga if you think it's not a randomiser.

It's not the reliable expression of an underlying pattern if we need to use that expression on a map. Yes, we can see there is one. For the Jenga game on its own the retention of the tower turn to turn is enough for playing a balanced game. As a randomizer in an RPG like D&D it doesn't work.

Wait, what? Who ever thought that? Which faithful? D&D player faithful? GURPS players?

The people I played GURPS with generally did so because they were more heavily into the sim end of the stick than D&D was. But, I have to admit, this is a new one. GURPS isn't a roleplaying game? Good grief.

Look at the context, the D&D faithful of course. Check your history.

 

[howandwhy99]

Wait, what? You must make a map prior to play. But, you don't have to use those maps. What? If I don't have to use the maps that I make prior to play, why do I have to make a map? Why can't I generate a map during play - I've got these nifty random dungeon generators right there in the AD&D DMG after all.

The maps on hand, the module published, are not the one's a DM must necessarily use.

And you can use the map generators in the game books if those are part of the code you want to use. But as a DM you must select that beforehand. Prepping before a session is just common sense. It takes awhile to generate or convert usable copy.

 

[howandwhy99]

I've never met anyone who didn't consider GURPS an RPG. I've never met anyone, until now, who thought a DM was never (sorry, NEVER) to improvise. I've never met anyone, until now, who thought D&D didn't have resolution mechanisms.

Futhermore, I have no idea how to parse this sentence: "Playing it does so like sports have designs which test and improve one's athleticism"

The "whole premise" of an RPG is players can score points for their role playing in a game. That players are limited to their current creative skill marks the boundaries they have. Like people's real world strength or speed. D&D is a design test to give resistance (complex codes) to those who want to improve their actual creativity and imagination. Playing it does so like sports have designs which test and improve one's athleticism.

For your amusement,
Playing it -> The game of D&D
does so -> gives resistance
like sports have designs....