D&D 5E Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room

[Ovinomancer]

I agree with you that it's easy to make the world work how I'd like it to; mechanics can assist with that, and I do think that they can hinder it as well, but I think that's far less often.

My point, however, is that world-building is largely an exercise of the imagination. It has nothing to do with D&D the game. I believe that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s comment about D&D not being a good world-building game, he was talking about the mechanics of the game versus verisimilitude. Everything you and I are discussing is pretty separate from the mechanics. So when someone says "D&D is a good world-building game" it seems they actually must be talking about the mechanics of the game, or else perhaps they meant to say "I use my imagination to build worlds for my D&D game".

If it's not mechanics that are being discussed, then what does "D&D is a good world-building game" even mean? What makes D&D a good world-building game?

Because, as any discussion on HP and what they represent will show, the D&D mechanics and how they interact with the game world is anything but "trivially solved", at least in a general consensus manner. Everyone has their own take on how the mechanics of the game interact with the fiction of the world.

Ultimately, I don't think that Hussar's point was nearly as contentious as many have taken it....he's saying that using D&D mechanics to world build is probably not the best idea; that there are other game systems more suited to that endeavor. Which makes sense to me, and which I would not expect would be a stance that many would choose to challenge. Although there are some folks I've chatted with here on the boards that think that the D&D world revolves around the game mechanics...but I think they're the minority.

For starters, no one has said D&D is a good world-building game. No matter how I parse that, even. What's been said is that D&D includes worldbuilding. While, yes, there are no mechanics for worldbuilding, the rules of the game actually do assume that there's been some form of worldbuilding done already. Heck, for the Cleric class to exist you have to define how gods work in your game, even if it's to say there are no gods and clerics just get power from the world gestalt. So, no, I don't agree with the idea that D&D exists only as a set of game rules that has no connection to worldbuilding. It's intimately tied throughout.

Now, what I do think is happening is that the default worldbuilding provided with the core set, as outlined in the DMG Part 1 under base assumptions of the game (that you can change). They've been there so long and are so closely knit with the rules that we overlook that worldbuilding occurred and is required to actually make those rules work. You don't personally have to do the worldbuilding to have worldbuilding involved.

And, as for [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point, you may be correct as to his point, but he certainly kicked off the ball in the wrong direction with the constant insistence that D&D doesn't incorporate worldbuilding; that is just weird.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Eberron, Toril, Athas... multiple worlds expressly designed to work with D&D mechanics. Numerous creative elements throughout those worlds arise from the game mechanics. And of course, the mechanics themselves are shaped to sustain heroic fantasy worlds.

Yeah. That doesn't really point to a 'world-building system,' that points to the system getting in the way of world-building, and being banged into shape for the new world. Athas, in particular, is a good example. It didn't take D&D and use it to define the world of Athas, it completely re-did D&D - particularly eliminating and re-designing classes - to keep it from undermining the world of Athas, and it wasn't easy nor entirely successful.

RPGs, by their nature, are open-ended enough that you could take a system, even one designed for and locked into a specific, licensed, setting and use it in another setting, especially an original one. But that doesn't make them world-building systems, just systems transplantable into different worlds.

SimEarth is a world-building system. ;P

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah. That doesn't really point to a 'world-building system,' that points to the system getting in the way of world-building, and being banged into shape for the new world. Athas, in particular, is a good example. It didn't take D&D and use it to define the world of Athas, it completely re-did D&D - particularly eliminating and re-designing classes - to keep it from undermining the world of Athas, and it wasn't easy nor entirely successful.

RPGs, by their nature, are open-ended enough that you could take a system, even one designed for and locked into a specific, licensed, setting and use it in another setting, especially an original one. But that doesn't make them world-building systems, just systems transplantable into different worlds.

SimEarth is a world-building system. ;P

Not sure Darksun "completely redid D&D." Changed some flavors and altered how magic worked, sure, but the learning curve between Greyhaek and Athas is pretty darned flat.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not sure Darksun "completely redid D&D." Changed some flavors and altered how magic worked, sure, but the learning curve between Greyhaek and Athas is pretty darned flat.

'How magic works' is a huge chunk of D&D, by itself, and nixxing deities & clerics had deep implications, too. But, sure, it didn't switch away from d20 or THAC0 or anything - so I may have over-stated things just a skosh.

Point is, it needed to throw out, add, and re-design classes (among other things) to fit them to the world, it didn't just pick world-defining options and tune them up a little, using the system to build the world.

In contrast a system like Hero wouldn't need to be changed to run in a different setting, you'd set campaign ground-rules, maybe create some packages that'd help define the world, sorta, but they system wouldn't hinder you until you slapped it into shape - and that's /still/ not a world-building system, just a system that doesn't obstruct world-building.

 

[clearstream]

Yeah. That doesn't really point to a 'world-building system,' that points to the system getting in the way of world-building, and being banged into shape for the new world. Athas, in particular, is a good example. It didn't take D&D and use it to define the world of Athas, it completely re-did D&D - particularly eliminating and re-designing classes - to keep it from undermining the world of Athas, and it wasn't easy nor entirely successful.

RPGs, by their nature, are open-ended enough that you could take a system, even one designed for and locked into a specific, licensed, setting and use it in another setting, especially an original one. But that doesn't make them world-building systems, just systems transplantable into different worlds.

SimEarth is a world-building system. ;P

Could be some misunderstanding here. I'm not saying that D&D is a world building system, I'm saying that world building is (and has) been part of D&D for a long time. And that rules and guidelines addressing the game world gets a decent share of the design focus. For example, something I liked about the 5e MM was to see the concise paragraphs placing each creature in the world. We read that orc war chiefs are "scions of slaughter" and their game mechanics reflect that with Gruumsh's Fury. It seems likely to me that a set of mechanics crafted to a single world should be able to better sustain that world - better integrate fluff and crunch - but D&D aims to support multiple worlds. Characters fighting creatures is the heart of D&D and gets most attention of course. But theirs is a bare stage without the world building rules and guidelines.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Could be some misunderstanding here. I'm not saying that D&D is a world building system, I'm saying that world building is (and has) been part of D&D for a long time.

That far, sure. World-building in D&D is a creative exercise many DMs engage in, and D&D has traditionally had some - often voluminous advice for them.

I don't think it's much risen to the level of 'system,' though. Maybe that's what's throwing me.

It seems likely to me that a set of mechanics crafted to a single world should be able to better sustain that world - better integrate fluff and crunch

"Better integrate fluff & crunch" is something 5e set out to do: to return to a more natural-language presentation with a blurrier line between the two.

but D&D aims to support multiple worlds. Characters fighting creatures is the heart of D&D and gets most attention of course. But theirs is a bare stage without the world building rules and guidelines.

Meh. We've seen very little 'support' for multiple worlds, let alone any sort of system for creating novel ones. But, like I said, maybe it's just the implications of 'system' that are throwing me...


A big chunk of D&D's actual systems has generally been character-defining systems, especially magic with long lists of spells & long lists of magic items. Equally voluminous, the long lists of monsters for characters to fight, of course. Actual systems to build worlds, though, not so much.

Lots of folks have extrapolated the systems we do have to world-building: y'know, wizards can cast Continual Light, so big cities have street lights, that kinda thing. 3.x, with NPC classes, professional skills and the like probably when the furthest, that way, there was this impression everyone had stats & levels and ranks &c - that could almost be taken as world-building, even if it would have been prohibitive to actually build a whole world one NPC at a time.

 

[hawkeyefan]

For starters, no one has said D&D is a good world-building game. No matter how I parse that, even. What's been said is that D&D includes worldbuilding. While, yes, there are no mechanics for worldbuilding, the rules of the game actually do assume that there's been some form of worldbuilding done already. Heck, for the Cleric class to exist you have to define how gods work in your game, even if it's to say there are no gods and clerics just get power from the world gestalt. So, no, I don't agree with the idea that D&D exists only as a set of game rules that has no connection to worldbuilding. It's intimately tied throughout.

Now, what I do think is happening is that the default worldbuilding provided with the core set, as outlined in the DMG Part 1 under base assumptions of the game (that you can change). They've been there so long and are so closely knit with the rules that we overlook that worldbuilding occurred and is required to actually make those rules work. You don't personally have to do the worldbuilding to have worldbuilding involved.

And, as for [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point, you may be correct as to his point, but he certainly kicked off the ball in the wrong direction with the constant insistence that D&D doesn't incorporate worldbuilding; that is just weird.

If no one has said it makes a good world building system, then I don't see how anyone would be at odds with what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] said. He said it does not make a good world building system. He made the point that the system was designed to build dungeons for PCs to explore and everything else was added to that after the fact. I don't think that assessment is wrong.

Is D&D incapable of being used to build worlds? No. Is anyone saying that doing so is "badwrongfun"? No. I think the point is that if that's what you want from a system, then D&D yields results that would not be as good as other systems. He cited Traveller as a prime example (I'm not familiar with it myself, so I can't really comment on that). So I think his point was pretty straightforward, and not quite as contentious as some of the replies would indicate.

I don't think we can divorce world-building from D&D. I think it's an essential part of the game. I just think it's something that is done not because of the system, but alongside the system.

 

[Tony Vargas]

He cited Traveller as a prime example (I'm not familiar with it myself, so I can't really comment on that).

It's been a while, and I never delved that deep into it, but IIRC, there was literally a system for generating planets, including inhabited ones and their 'tech level' and such. Nothing too elaborate, I don't think, but it's a system with a depth of history and variations comparable to D&D, and I like, played it for a year or two in the mid 80s.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, so we're all in agreement that D&D is not a particularly good system for world building right? That world building is done alongside the system, not using the system? Have we hit a point of agreement?

Because if that's true, then going back to the original point that started this tangent, arguing world building effects caused by the mechanics is pointless. Since world building is done without referencing the actual mechanics, the reverse is also true.

So, while the PC's might face 3 deadly encounters per day, this has ZERO impact on the larger world. Because the system is concerned with the PC's and how they go on adventures. The system is not concerned with making your world "work".

Just because PC's always manage to find adventures wherever they go, it doesn't follow that the rest of the world has adventures all over the place.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Ok, so we're all in agreement that D&D is not a particularly good system for world building right? That world building is done alongside the system, not using the system?

I'm afraid I'd also have to go with 'world building is done in spite of the system.' Because it can get in the way, at times.

So, while the PC's might face 3 deadly encounters per day, this has ZERO impact on the larger world.

Just because PC's always manage to find adventures wherever they go, it doesn't follow that the rest of the world has adventures all over the place.

That kind of logic is perfectly reasonable, of course, though that never helped during the edition war.

But whether it's 'the world' or the tone or pacing of the campaign, or the needs of the story or whatever reason the DM has for wanting to place more or fewer, easier or harder than the 6-8 medium/hard of the guidelines, without sacrificing the modicum of class balance those guidelines can be helpful in working towards, it becomes an issue.

So, I say, don't let it - take control of when rests can be taken and what benefits can be derived from them. It's entirely consistent with 5e philosophy, just not with ' 5e RAW,' which is an oxymoron, anyway.