Indie Games Are Not More Focused. They Are Differently Focused.

[Imaro]

I'm finding a weird disconnect in this conversation. Are we comparing the flexibility of games or systems? I see some posters claiming D&D is not as flexible as some say and FitD is more flexible than people claim... but that's not really comparing like. D&D is a game, FitD is a system... BitD or Band of Blades would be a game. So are we talking games or system flexibility?

 

[Umbran]

For example, look at Fate. Fate is strongly based around the use of Aspects, both having them compelled in order to get fate points and activating them yourself to get bonuses. So in a typical Fate game, you will get into a lot of trouble just because of who you are (gain fate points) but in the end you'll come back and eke out victory by calling on your reserves (spending fate points). This can apply to lots of different environments: urban fantasy, pulp science-fiction, martial arts competitions, time-traveling cosmic horror, and so on, but they'll all follow a similar beat.

In a way, you could say that playing a system like Fate is like watching an episode of Blackadder (at least season 2-4).

The implication from your examples is that Fate will be silly, while Age of Rebellion will be serious, which is far from the fact.

Who you are matters in a Fate game, yes. But the structure of that, in terms of developing events, is only formulaic if your GM has a structured approach to compels. GMs can be formulaic when playing any game at all.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm finding a weird disconnect in this conversation. Are we comparing the flexibility of games or systems? I see some posters claiming D&D is not as flexible as some say and FitD is more flexible than people claim... but that's not really comparing like. D&D is a game, FitD is a system... BitD or Band of Blades would be a game. So are we talking games or system flexibility?

I think it’s kind of about the interaction of the two. If we look at the specific game as the element that determines what is needed (the setting/genre/etc) and the system as the means of delivering those elements.

So old school D&D is about delving into dungeons….so the system includes rules for encumbrance and exploration turns and random encounters and so on. The system is what delivers the needs of the game.

 

[Jay Murphy1]

"I think a lot of the “variety” that D&D allows is more perceived than actual. Like playing in Ebberon versus Dark Sun. Sure, the settings are different, but the game will largely flow the same way."

D&D, and any of the original roleplaying games were designed with the expectation players could create their own living world. From the original Traveller rulebook:



"The greatest burden…falls on the referee, who must create entire worlds and societies through which the players will roam. One very interesting source of assistance for this task is the existing science-fiction literature. Virtually anything mentioned in a story or article can be transferred to the Traveller environment…absolutely anything can occur, with imagination being the only limit. The players themselves have a burden almost equal to that of the referee: they must move, act, travel in search of their own goals…Above all, the players and the referees must work together. Care must be taken that the referee does not simply lay the fortunes in the path of the players, but the situation is not primarily and adversary relationship. The referee simply administers the rules in situations where the players themselves have an incomplete understanding of the universe. The results should reflect a consistent reality.”



There is much to unpack from Marc Miller’s statement. First, it represents the original creators of roleplaying games belief that the rules designed were to be used to come up with anything referees and players want to do. It was only after they realized many of their customers did not want to do this work, they started to release settings and adventures. The first customers who “got it” obviously went on their merry way and pursued their dreams and imaginings.



The next important point is the belief users would be invested in the source material, their favorite science fiction for science fiction, their favorite fantasy for playing fantasy. I observe that it was not long before players and referees were playing, wanting to play, expected to play D&D, not so much fantasy. Or Traveller opposed to science fiction or say Champions as opposed to supers. It was a move away from playing fantasy and deciding what that would look like to playing a specific game. Playing Champions become playing Champions, not so much as playing supers. Traveller became playing in the Traveller Universe and the Spinward Marches and not playing the participants ideal science fiction world. This is because it is easier to use something which already exists compared to doing a hard think (by everyone) on what makes a great (insert genre here) and what elements should be included. And then taking the next step and not make it boring. For some reason, out of the gate, most players ceded authority to the rulebook, as if a set of mechanics knew what a great fantasy/sci-fi game looked like and discarded the creator’s emphasis on this responsibility being that of both PC and referee.



Miller continues, emphasizing the relationship between player and referee, naturally. There was not an original rpg which did not, up front believe players of the game read fantasy adventure books and would take the game rules to recreate their favorite ideas. That “The players themselves have a burden almost equal to that of the referee: they must move, act, travel in search of their own goals…” “Above all, the players and the referees must work together.” The notion of “being a fan of the players” was baked into the original concepts of roleplaying games. The fact that participants played poorly (railroads, killer DM’s, etc.) reflects player ability more than a failure of a game’s design.



When these games came out in the early 70’s those who were first in the hobby at ages of 30, 40, 50+ probably played a sophisticated game with much nuance and creativity. That would be expected of an adult. If you were 11 like myself, you played a child’s game lacking the depth a well read grown up with a passion for a genre would. Then the older, experienced gamers died and their experiences would have died with them. RPGs are an oral tradition after all. If you were like me and really into the art form you would try and figure out why the promise made by the creators wasn’t really happening at the table with your teenage friends. Being a kid had a lot to do with that, but try and tell a teenager they are wrong about something...



Indie games are a fascinating look at once young gamers coming back to the source material of adventure fantasy and as adults getting something that was already there. An epiphany, more than anything. There is an undercurrent of “yeah, I didn’t get it at age 15” in indie games I see subsumed within the intent of their rules. This has a knock-off effect of indie games with a tight focus on a specific experience which is closely aligned as possible with the original source material which spawned the excitement. The specific experience original creators had in mind when they released their products for the first time.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think that relies on a lack of awareness of D&D's culture of play and the constraints they do not see because they are use to / embrace.

Oof. So between you and other posters, those of us who say (correctly) that many indie games are purpose built to tell a single type of story very very well, while D&D and some ther games are built to tell a wider variety of games with a wider variety of play styles, are ignorant of both indie games…and D&D…awesome.

Has it literally ever occurred to you that we are very familiar with both, and just have an opinion that’s different from yours?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think a lot of the “variety” that D&D allows is more perceived than actual. Like playing in Ebberon versus Dark Sun. Sure, the settings are different, but the game will largely flow the same way.

Or, those of us who say D&D has a lot of variety have used D&D in a wide variety of ways, producing very different gameplay experiences.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

and a lot of world-building being assumed by the rules such as gods granting their followers magical abilities.

This is a great example of a thing I’ve said many times in the past. A lot of the perceived inflexibility of D&D is actually just relics from the past and people ignoring that they aren’t necessarily a thing anymore.

In 5e, the gods don’t necessarily grant magical abilities. You can play a game with no extra planar beings, much less gods. Clerics and Paladins can be dedicated to ideals, rather than gods. And yet, people act like there is something in the rules that makes it so that gods give power to followers.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Or, those of us who say D&D has a lot of variety have used D&D in a wide variety of ways, producing very different gameplay experiences.

Anything is possible, sure.

I think a lot of times said variety is often achieved by actively altering the rules, or discarding some or adding in new rules.

At which point, the question becomes: does changing the rules in such a way actually imply flexibility?

Perhaps a system can be designed to be hacked and altered by its users, and so we can attribute some bit of flexibility to the design.

But then that would likely be true of most other games as well. Which means it’s a relatively moot point.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Anything is possible, sure.

I think a lot of times said variety is often achieved by actively altering the rules, or discarding some or adding in new rules.

At which point, the question becomes: does changing the rules in such a way actually imply flexibility?

Ignoring all the optional rules that change how the game runs, and the fact that the gameplay process is less prescribed than games like Blades In The Dark, a game that is made to not break when modified is more flexible, yes.

Perhaps a system can be designed to be hacked and altered by its users, and so we can attribute some bit of flexibility to the design.

But then that would likely be true of most other games as well. Which means it’s a relatively moot point.

It's not at all a moot point. A game that is built to be modified is meaningfully different from a game that is not built for that. The most prominent difference is simply that the game built for modification is less likely to break with modification, but it's also a matter of game culture. I get a lot less flak when I talk about modifiying DnD than when I talk about modifying even WoD, much less Monster of The Week.

Likewise, more GMs will mod a game that tells them to do what they want and "follow their bliss", than a game that is clearly built under the design ethos that the GM should follow the rules and trust the process or play something else.

 

[Umbran]

Or, those of us who say D&D has a lot of variety have used D&D in a wide variety of ways, producing very different gameplay experiences.

Embrace the power of "and". The points you two are making aren't mutually exclusive. You can both be correct.

Yes, D&D can produce some different gameplay experiences. However, several things people claim are differences... aren't all that different. And, in many cases, those differences aren't about the game.

As a broad example - some folks say D&D isn't great at horror. If you say you've produced a great horror experience by adding music, scents and lighting effects to your play area, that's nothing to do with the game system proper.