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

[hawkeyefan]

No, I was referring to exactly that. DnD doesn't rely on that, it just includes it as the "easiest way to play". To me, reliance on something means that the thing in question cannot be done without the thing supposedly relied upon. I've run DnD with 3 players and no DM, creating the world as we played. I've done it in a very freeform manner, simply improvising the world based on how we built our characters and then on how we played them and what we needed the world to be in order to do the thing we are trying to do or establish the thing about our character we are trying to establish. I've a friend who does it by borrowing from AW and BiTD, but I haven't played in that game.

We used the "This Is Your Life" chapter of Xanathar's, hacked somewhat using Heroes of The Feywild from 4e, to create characters, and used those prompts to create what turned into a small island kingdom in which we were starting out, simply going turn by turn to keep things simple until we had characters with all the bits filled in, and each had at least 2 contacts within the world, one chosen by the player and one chosen by the other two players.

Then we played dnd. Random hook generators are easy to find, but our first adventure was just me saying, "There's a festival of lights and masks going all week, so the capital is crowded with celebrants and people trying to make money off them" and then the next person said, "And we're here to stage an event that will upset people and direct that upset at the foreign governor" because that tied it into her backstory and a shared love of the book Tigana, and we went from there.

Thing is, "is there a chance of failure and consequences for failure?" is 99% of the time quite obvious to everyone at the table. The DMG has suggested DCs. Fail forward, yes and, success with complication, all allow for less need to even think about arguing with adjudication. Whoever isn't acting can determine how hard something is, and even CR is just a guideline, not an actual rule. Just make it up. We had a chart for what HP range, to-hit range, and average damage, a creature should have when coming up against us at a given level, and just used that to quick-and-dirty sketch enemies and other NPCs.

I'm not saying it's not something that could use fleshing out and possibly a chapter or two in a book to really work well for new players, but we didn't have to change any of DnD's rules to do it.

That sounds pretty cool, and I have no doubt it can be done as you say and be a fun experience.

But that's not what anyone new to D&D would arrive at from the books. You may not have had to change rules, but you're definitely changing the processes of play. I'd say so fundamentally that I don't know if we can attribute this as an example of flexibility of D&D as a game, really. Like, it's D&D, but it's D&D being played in a way that's significantly different from the processes described in the books.

It's more about how you and your group are flexible with the process of play, and how you can incorporate other elements (random generators, charts, etc.) to support the changes you've made.

I don't say this to dismiss or argue, but I do think this is a severe departure from the standard D&D gameplay.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That sounds pretty cool, and I have no doubt it can be done as you say and be a fun experience.

But that's not what anyone new to D&D would arrive at from the books.

Absolutely I agree that for this to be normal play, you'd need a chapter in a book dedicated to explaining how to do it, and it would benefit from a little more mechanical help (though not a lot. mechanise every part of it, and I lose interest. As I've said in other threads, physical challenges are the only place where I want hard-coded mechanical process like combat has. I wish 5e had a little more of it for non-combat physical challenges, but not for social or investigative challenges).

You may not have had to change rules, but you're definitely changing the processes of play. I'd say so fundamentally that I don't know if we can attribute this as an example of flexibility of D&D as a game, really. Like, it's D&D, but it's D&D being played in a way that's significantly different from the processes described in the books.

The thing is, DnD's specific identity is that any given group makes it their own, and the process described in teh books is just advice.

It's more about how you and your group are flexible with the process of play, and how you can incorporate other elements (random generators, charts, etc.) to support the changes you've made.

I don't say this to dismiss or argue, but I do think this is a severe departure from the standard D&D gameplay.

Right. Exactly. And yet nothing breaks. Because DnD can easily handle huge departures from the default processes, as long as you aren't severely changing the rules, and even then the rules are more robust and open to change in 5e than either of the last two editions before it. Wizards could put out a book that assumes the same level of departure from the "process of play", and it would work fine. A heist game in 5e departs nearly as much, and running heists in 5e is wonderful. I've run a investigative game, and contrary to what someone told me "will inevitably happen" when trying to run such a game with 5e...its just works. Out of the box. No houserules but those we use in every 5e game, just a different process of play than we use for a more standard adventure game.

This is pretty tangential to the thread topic, though, which is about focus. Since I see any particular "focus" people see in 5e (beyond "fantasy adventure roleplaying game") as almost entirely illusory and based on social expectation, not on how the game is designed or even presented/marketed (see the huge difference between what the DMG presents as a balanced day vs the playstyle of every single popular actual play show, for instance), I don't think I have much to contribute that I haven't already said, on that topic, and engaging with it seems to inevitably lead to several streams of novel length reply chains, so I'll stick to tangents I think.

I'd be happy to try to have this discussion in more depth in a new thread, if you want to start one, and if we can keep it from becoming another "what kind of game is more flexible and also what does flexible mean" argument like we were having previously. I find this particular line of discussion interesting, just not in a context that is directly relevant to the thread topic.

 

[Campbell]

Here's my general experience based on both my personal life (former soldier, combat sports athlete (football, wrestling, muay thai, jiujistu) , engineer, theater geek) and my own hard fought experiences trying to run character driven games that are not group oriented or adventure focused using both traditional games and indie games.

If you want to do something that is hard to do mindset is everything. It's not enough to have the desire to do it. You need motivation, intention, and discipline. Hard stuff generally does not just happen on it's own. Technique matters. Process matters. You can design or come up with a process for a game that lacks it or alter the existing procedures, but to consistently achieve something that is hard to do you need to get your mind right and have some sort of disciplined process in place. You also do need to be fairly adaptable. Sometimes you still fail, but consistent results require a consistent approach.

 

[Campbell]

From my perspective there's no meaningful difference between a body of shared social expectations surrounding a game and a written rule in a rulebook. Both constrain our behavior at the table. In a game where the rules are enforced by the play group they have the same force. Often in traditional gaming culture the unwritten parts of the play culture almost have more influence then what's written in the books.

A big part of this is a difference in how we see games. From my perspective games are about the greater culture of play they engender. The point of any game is that it alters our existing social arrangements temporarily. That while we play it we take on the roles and objectives of the game.

 

[Campbell]

Let's take a look at an example outside the realm of D&D. Exalted Essence, which is supposed to be a simpler version of the game, dramatically alters the way social influence and the great curse work in Exalted Third Edition. Exalted Third Edition has binding social mechanics that utilize your character's intimacies or values and unique systems for the Great Curse, moments where players lose a measure of control over their character as a result of ancient curses levied against the Exalted host for destroying the Titans, that is based on the actions you take. Essence pretty much defangs both of these for player characters making it so you get a minor penalty to your dice pool for going against what they call a hard bargain and can choose to be affected by the Great Curse when you want in order to gain experience.

Does this make Essence more flexible?

From my perspective not one damn bit. Because with Essence I don't get to feel the weight of the Great Curse or have my character be convinced despite themselves. I can only choose to do so as part of a collaborative storytelling exercise. The sort of play where we have binding mechanics that have real teeth to them simply is not included in games where we have to make those choices for ourselves.

 

[Manbearcat]

Let's take a look at an example outside the realm of D&D. Exalted Essence, which is supposed to be a simpler version of the game, dramatically alters the way social influence and the great curse work in Exalted Third Edition. Exalted Third Edition has binding social mechanics that utilize your character's intimacies or values and unique systems for the Great Curse, moments where players lose a measure of control over their character as a result of ancient curses levied against the Exalted host for destroying the Titans, that is based on the actions you take. Essence pretty much defangs both of these for player characters making it so you get a minor penalty to your dice pool for going against what they call a hard bargain and can choose to be affected by the Great Curse when you want in order to gain experience.

Does this make Essence more flexible?

From my perspective not one damn bit. Because with Essence I don't get to feel the weight of the Great Curse or have my character be convinced despite themselves. I can only choose to do so as part of a collaborative storytelling exercise. The sort of play where we have binding mechanics that have real teeth to them simply is not included in games where we have to make those choices for ourselves.

Great post. Basically a system-level comparison of (a) what I posted prior above sim priorities + mental/emotional hijacking (of which you don't get to choose) to (b) demonstrate the premise of your thread.

Getting to choose whether you're mentally or emotionally hijacked does not make a system more flexible. It fundamentally means "this system cannot produce the actual, non-volitional mental/emotional hijacking inherent to x, y, z!"

/standing ovation!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Does this make Essence more flexible?

From my perspective not one damn bit. Because with Essence I don't get to feel the weight of the Great Curse or have my character be convinced despite themselves. I can only choose to do so as part of a collaborative storytelling exercise. The sort of play where we have binding mechanics that have real teeth to them simply is not included in games where we have to make those choices for ourselv

Okay...can you explain how having less choice makes the game less flexible? I don't think we will ever agree, but you and I clearly define the word flexible differently and I'd like to at least understand what you definition even is.

And you can experience your character being convinced in spite of themselves. You just can't experience them being convinced in spite of you. But a game that makes it more up to the player just trusts the player more to make honest choices. My shadar-kai monk sometimes is overwhelmed by stimulus, or falls into a dissociative fugue from lack thereof. I would absolutely detest the mechanics of the game imposing some author's idea of what overstimulation is like for someone with severe ADHD, significant anxiety, and symptoms of autism, while others want the mechanics to do exactly that. However, if you have a game that mechanizes that element, and one that only mechanizes resolution and trusts you to honestly roleplay things like that, I cannot fathom how you could define "flexible" in such a way as to consider the more tightly mechanized game as the flexible one.

I literally have more options for how to proceed in the less mechanized game.

Another angle on this. Would you agree or disagree that combat is less flexible in 5e than social challenges are?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Getting to choose whether you're mentally or emotionally hijacked does not make a system more flexible. It fundamentally means "this system cannot produce the actual, non-volitional mental/emotional hijacking inherent to x, y, z!"

IMO nothing can. Either way, actual roleplaying of the mental state requires player buy in, and players vary on which model is easier to immerse in the experience of a mental state like that.

edit: and i still don't see how this relates to flexibility. Flexibility is the ability to change or be changed easily according to the situation. How do procedural mechanics for determining specifically how something plays out more flexible than mechanics that only determine action resolution?

For instance.

In two games you want to read a room, and gain insight about the emotional state of everyone in it, especially in relation to eachother.

In game A, there are a couple skills you could use, depending on described approach, and circumstance and approach could mean that you either just get the info, just don't, or have to make a check to determine. Further, that result can be binary, or not, within the rules.

In game B, you use the character ability named "Read A Bad Situation", and if you roll too low, you get nothing and the GM makes a "hard move", if you roll in the middle you choose between a small set of mixed results (price to pay, you have to do something extra to get the info, you get only some of the desired information), and if you roll high enough you just get all the info at no "cost", and might even get a bonus going forward on your next check related to the gain information.

Explain, if you would, why you see game B as more flexible than game A.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Absolutely I agree that for this to be normal play, you'd need a chapter in a book dedicated to explaining how to do it, and it would benefit from a little more mechanical help (though not a lot. mechanise every part of it, and I lose interest. As I've said in other threads, physical challenges are the only place where I want hard-coded mechanical process like combat has. I wish 5e had a little more of it for non-combat physical challenges, but not for social or investigative challenges).

Well, that'll vary by taste and expectation, I think. I personally like when there are at least some social mechanics that come into play. D&D does have a few, but they're almost always cushioned by the label of "magic" or some similar explanation. I like when social interactions can be engaged in a similarly tactical way as combat or any other game element.

The thing is, DnD's specific identity is that any given group makes it their own, and the process described in teh books is just advice.

I know what you mean here, but there are also plenty of folks who don't allow plenty of things. "No drow PCs for the love of Gygax!!!!" and "Dragonborn over my dead body!!!!" and "Core rulebooks only!!!!" and "I"m GM and it's my game, you either play this way or buh-bye" and other similar sentiments are very common.

And of course, most other games similarly encourage making the game your own.

This is why I said earlier this seems more an RPG quality than a D&D one.

Right. Exactly. And yet nothing breaks. Because DnD can easily handle huge departures from the default processes, as long as you aren't severely changing the rules, and even then the rules are more robust and open to change in 5e than either of the last two editions before it.

Okay, so without changing the rules, let's say I want to run a campaign that will have literally zero combat. If a fight ever breaks out, it's resolved with like one roll and you add your level, and the GM sets a DC. If you pass, you win, if you don't you lose and the GM narrates what happens on a loss.

But the focus of the game is going to be courtly intrigue. Subterfuge and espionage and doublecrosses and secret meetings and all of that are going to be the kinds of events and actions that drive the game.

From what you're telling me, without changing the rules, D&D is just as suited to this kind of game as it is to a more standard heroic fantasy adventure game? D&D can handle this change because it's so flexible?

To me, a game that's so flexible wouldn't wind up ignoring 90% of its rules due to a change like this. Nor would it be as dull as the resulting game would likely be.

Another angle on this. Would you agree or disagree that combat is less flexible in 5e than social challenges are?

I wouldn't really agree.

In combat, I can do all kinds of things. There are a ton of actions described in the rules for me to do.

In a social encounters, generally there is one process. A DC is set by the DM, a check is made, and success or failure is determined by the DM.

Barring a high level of familiarity and player facing details shared by the DM, a player in D&D has no real idea of how likely it could be that he could, say, make an NPC angry enough to attack him. It's entirely up to the DM if that is even possible, and then if it is, what the chances are by establishing DC, and so on.

So the idea "anything is possible, it all depends on what you want to try and do....you can try anything!!!" is true in theory, and so I get your point, in practice it's usually far from the case. And as a result, social actions like that and the role they play are diminished.

 

[Manbearcat]

IMO nothing can. Either way, actual roleplaying of the mental state requires player buy in, and players vary on which model is easier to immerse in the experience of a mental state like that.

edit: and i still don't see how this relates to flexibility. Flexibility is the ability to change or be changed easily according to the situation. How do procedural mechanics for determining specifically how something plays out more flexible than mechanics that only determine action resolution?

For instance.

In two games you want to read a room, and gain insight about the emotional state of everyone in it, especially in relation to eachother.

In game A, there are a couple skills you could use, depending on described approach, and circumstance and approach could mean that you either just get the info, just don't, or have to make a check to determine. Further, that result can be binary, or not, within the rules.

In game B, you use the character ability named "Read A Bad Situation", and if you roll too low, you get nothing and the GM makes a "hard move", if you roll in the middle you choose between a small set of mixed results (price to pay, you have to do something extra to get the info, you get only some of the desired information), and if you roll high enough you just get all the info at no "cost", and might even get a bonus going forward on your next check related to the gain information.

Explain, if you would, why you see game B as more flexible than game A.

We're talking about separate things in each of our posts. And I'm not talking about "immersion" in my post. That is something I don't do. So first, what I'm talking about:

Having a cognitive state being thrust upon you or being (mundanely) afflicted with something that you would otherwise not wish to have had thrust upon you/been afflicted with.

This could be despair or frustration or anxiety or trepidation. Whatever it is, you're caught in the orbit of something and you don't have the (lets call it) emotional/mental escape velocity to change the relationship of you to thing.

This is not performative. This is a state where you have no veto nor volition to exercise.

Very scary delves (Torchbearer is excellent at this) done right can do a fantastic job with trepidation and anxiety and sometimes despair and frustration. However, this is different from Dogs in the Vineyard where the traumatic/complicating features of your Traits and Relationships collide with combustible conflicts that are waiting to turn into outright conflagrations (and you're dutybound to confront them so there is no out). (i) When you deploy a Trait or a Relationship w/ a d4 attached to it (even if that isn't the only die) AND the conflict escalates to lethal violence, you're very likely to endure Long-term Fallout where your character erodes out from underneath you. (ii) Further, the conflict resolution mechanics are meant to test you in a "how far are you willing to go to see this through" kind of way whereby, there are going to be a lot of conflicts that force you to escalate from "just talking" to "violence" because of the forces arrayed against you + the way the dice have fallen.

(i) and (ii) combine to create a very particular "caught in the orbit of something beyond you" sensation to play that is akin to Amygdala Hijack. No, it is not the same thing...but they are kindred.

I don't know the system that @Campbell is talking about, but the juxtaposition he draws is very clear to me in the same way that the confluence of (i) and (ii) in Dogs in the Vineyard is very clear to me.

What you're talking about:

TTRPG's Perception/Insight, Read a Sitch, Discern Realities, Survey, Aware/Sense fundamentally do not possess these features described above. They are the initial, active and volitional components of human cognition (Observe + Orient) in our OODA (Observe > Orient > Decide > Act) Loop that underwrites all of our interactions where we're "in control" (insofar as we're ever in control...but lets leave that to the side). When its "Passive x (like Perception in D&D" all that means is that we've developed the capacity to turn these things into rote, self-automating processes so our "active minds" can focus on other things.

When we undergo Amygdala Hijack or are dealing with a Cortisol/Adrenaline Dump, it is exactly the volitional Observe + Orient components of our OODA Loop that go bye-bye. We're neither actively observing and orienting nor are is our self-automating system procedurally performing this as a background subroutine. "The system has gone on the fritz." Consequently, the decision-tree that is executed and then the action this leads to are both underwritten by something even further away from our perceived expression of autonomous agency.