RPG Theory- The Limits of My Language are the Limits of My World

[Campbell]

@FrogReaver

The two biggest ways that D&D family games have historically gotten in the way mechanically for the types of games I like to run are the daily attrition model and how specialized characters tend to be.

To get players to that place where they really feel the pinch you generally have to put a significant amount of effort into pacing the adventuring day in some way. That can be in the form of wandering monster checks or just how you stock locations in more sandbox games or in active GM pacing. That's much harder to do in more set environments where exploration is not a focus of play. This can be more complicated when characters have vastly different resource schedules.

The more fundamental breakpoint is that D&D characters are just way too dependent on each other for a game where they might have individual agendas to pursue. It's hard to have scenes where characters go off and do things on their own if there is a high likelihood they need to have Bard or Rogue around every time they have a tense conversation. There's also the fact there is nothing more unexciting then a 1 on 1 fight in D&D.

I think there's a sense that some gamers have that adventuring is like fundamental to the roleplaying game experience. For a good deal of us that's just not the case. I think a lot of people just have never really fought against the edges of the game in the same way I have so they don't see those edges nearly as sharply.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think there's a sense that some gamers have that adventuring is like fundamental to the roleplaying game experience. For a good deal of us that's just not the case. I think a lot of people just have never really fought against the edges of the game in the same way I have so they don't see those edges nearly as sharply.

That could be. Or ... and this is just a possibility, other people just have different preferences than you do.

I keep seeing this disconnect- it's great that you've "fought against the edges of the game{.}" It's awesome that you enjoy games were people are pursuing their own individual agendas.

But it's quite likely that your preferences are not the same as other people's. That those things that you don't enjoy, are exactly what other people enjoy. That a game that is designed for your preferences would not be in alignment with the preferences of others.

Moreover, and this keeps getting re-stated and ignored, D&D is not just a single thing. Which is why it is eternally frustrating when someone says, "Well, this rule is in 5e. JUSTIFY IT!" (I guess it's better than being lectured to be people who don't play it at all ....)

D&D (and 5e) is the sum total of not just the rules, but the playing community and the norms. The expectations. The tensions between RAW and freeform groups. The expectations of those who want giant set-piece battles ever session with minis, and those who prefer a flowing game with very occasional ToTM combat.

And that's why this never gets anywhere (putting aside, for the second, that this thread was never about 5e). When there are those who discuss the flexibility or "big tent" nature of 5e, they aren't discussing a diversity of outcome, necessarily- D&D is very good at D&D- which is to say, a kind of fantasy that never existed with its own norms that can incorporate anything into it from spaceships to anime-inspirations, because it never bothered to be something more specific. On the other hand, it does allow for a multiplicity of process in order to be D&D; you can have a group get together at lunch and play some diceless 'D&D' or have someone play it as nearly a wargame or have another group incorporate 4e elements and skill challenges into 5e (there are plenty of places to find how to do that if you don't want to do it on your own).

That diversity of process is something that is definitely unusual in most games, which lack the history, community, and norms of D&D- most games expect that you will be playing the game as it is designed.

But it's not like this hasn't been said before! Again, D&D (and 5e) isn't perfect, and it's certainly not great for everyone. But that's hardly a novel observation. If it's not a game that works for your preferred playing style, or with your group, don't play it.

 

[Campbell]

@Snarf Zagyg

Please talk to me. Not at me. Please address what I am actually saying and not what you imagine to be saying.

I like Fifth Edition. I play it every 2 weeks and have done so for the last 2 years. I have fun playing it. I think it's a very well designed game that's great at what it does. I don't have any clue what you are expecting from me here.

I am just saying that like every other game D&D has a conceptual space it works best in. That conceptual space is not fundamentally more broad in my estimation. If you think it is please present your case to me in a way that shows respect for me and my play as I am trying to do for everyone else.

 

[Umbran]

Outside of @Sepulchrave II 's Tales of the Wyre game I have seldom seen play accounts that even reminded me of very typical World of Darkness or Legend of the Five Rings play with player characters pursuing individual agendas and working together when their agendas align, but not when they do not.

I think there are so many things other than mechanics that need to come together to support the pursuit of individual agendas that this isn't a cut-and-dried mechanical design issue.

I am not even convinced that play for individual agendas is actually "typical" of tabletop WoD play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Snarf Zagyg

Please talk to me. Not at me. Please address what I am actually saying and not what you imagine to be saying.

I like Fifth Edition. I play it every 2 weeks and have done so for the last 2 years. I have fun playing it. I think it's a very well designed game that's great at what it does. I don't have any clue what you are expecting from me here.

I am just saying that like every other game D&D has a conceptual space it works best in. That conceptual space is not fundamentally more broad in my estimation. If you think it is please present your case to me in a way that shows respect for me and my play as I am trying to do for everyone else.

You didn't put this in the other post, so your fidelity to 5e fandom was not clear. It's an easy mistake to make. Just make sure to always praise 5e in some way in every post, or tell people that you are indeed a constant player and fan, and these kinds of things can be avoided.

 

[Manbearcat]

You didn't put this in the other post, so your fidelity to 5e fandom was not clear. It's an easy mistake to make. Just make sure to always praise 5e in some way in every post, or tell people that you are indeed a constant player and fan, and these kinds of things can be avoided.

Followed by

And don’t forget to kiss the ring.

 

[Malmuria]

When you say "some people" in a post in a thread where a number of the posters are being criticised - as per you post here that I've quoted - I have a natural curiosity as to who the people are you have in mind. The phrase "system has a say" is one that on these boards I've only ever seen used by @Manbearcat, in posts that I believe you have probably also read, so I did take you to be alluding to him.

When you say that "system doesn't matter", a negation of a very well-known slogan associated with a particular individual and web-forum, are you surprised that that comes to mind in me (or other readers)? If what you actually mean is that you prefer free roleplaying to mechanics, I'm not sure why you don't just say that.

For me, this has nothing to do with authority: for me it is about what @Campbell posted upthread:
Eg back in the dying days of 4e D&D, when I wanted to explain why I liked skill challenges, I posted Why I like skill challenges as a noncombat resolution mechanic

I didn't say anything about what "we", or anyone else, "needs". I just explained why I like that particular method of resolution. As you can see from that thread if you want to, I didn't purport to speak for all 4e players. And indeed many 4e players posted in that thread explaining why they don't like skill challenges.

I don't know how many of the Twitter or reddit posters you refer to are also 5e players. But I don't understand why you frame your response to them using plural phrases like "we" and "5e players" (as if the latter were all of one mind on how to approach social resolution in 5e D&D play) rather than by attesting your own preferences.

Well, the context of my comment is a discussion of why 5e is popular, so my personal preferences are not actually very relevant. So I'm giving my impression of discourse I've seen online in trying to give an account of what makes 5e work for so many tables. If you want to make the (fairly obvious) point that that discussion is speculative and cannot speak to the preferences of each and every 5e player, go ahead, but I don't think speculating in that way is wildly out of bounds of normal discussion.

re: bold assertions. Certainly claims that I or anyone else make are based to a large degree in individual experiences. If you've played a wider array of games and/or played for a longer time, then you may very well have a perspective that helpfully contextualizes other people's claims. There is a way to introduce that perspective and participate in a conversation that does not imply that others are disqualified from participating. For examples of how do to this, see @Campbell 's posts.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I am just saying that like every other game D&D has a conceptual space it works best in. That conceptual space is not fundamentally more broad in my estimation. If you think it is please present your case to me in a way that shows respect for me and my play as I am trying to do for everyone else.

I don't think any further explanation will suffice, so I will reiterate what I just said.

D&D (and 5e) is the sum total of not just the rules, but the playing community and the norms. The expectations. The tensions between RAW and freeform groups. The expectations of those who want giant set-piece battles ever session with minis, and those who prefer a flowing game with very occasional ToTM combat.

And that's why this never gets anywhere (putting aside, for the second, that this thread was never about 5e). When there are those who discuss the flexibility or "big tent" nature of 5e, they aren't discussing a diversity of outcome, necessarily- D&D is very good at D&D- which is to say, a kind of fantasy that never existed with its own norms that can incorporate anything into it from spaceships to anime-inspirations, because it never bothered to be something more specific. On the other hand, it does allow for a multiplicity of process in order to be D&D; you can have a group get together at lunch and play some diceless 'D&D' or have someone play it as nearly a wargame or have another group incorporate 4e elements and skill challenges into 5e (there are plenty of places to find how to do that if you don't want to do it on your own).

That diversity of process is something that is definitely unusual in most games, which lack the history, community, and norms of D&D- most games expect that you will be playing the game as it is designed.

And that's it. That's the fundamental disconnect between what you are saying, and what others are saying. You keep asking for people to explain things to you in a matter of X (D&D is only good at D&D- what you call a conceptual space and I call diversity of outcome), and people respond by saying, "No, it's actually Y that we're talking about." (That D&D, because of the history, norms, 3PP, community, etc., has a great diversity of process and playing styles that are not encapsulated within the rules qua rules).

This disconnect in what people are discussing underlies a great deal of the disagreement, and not just about D&D. If people don't agree with a priori terminology and theoretical models you are using, they are unlikely to be able to explain things to you in a manner that you will find convincing; however, by the same token, you will be unlikely to convince them.

So if you were to abstract things out a little, and (to avoid jargon) simply state that D&D is better at some things, other games are better at other things- I think there would be broad agreement. But the actual disagreement is something I don't think will ever be resolved- because some people prefer systems that are flexible, hackable, and have large communities and norms regarding them, and others prefer systems that provide for any flexibility within the ruleset qua ruleset, and I doubt that this difference in approach is likely to be bridged.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, the context of my comment is a discussion of why 5e is popular, so my personal preferences are not actually very relevant. So I'm giving my impression of discourse I've seen online in trying to give an account of what makes 5e work for so many tables. If you want to make the (fairly obvious) point that that discussion is speculative and cannot speak to the preferences of each and every 5e player, go ahead, but I don't think speculating in that way is wildly out of bounds of normal discussion.

re: bold assertions. Certainly claims that I or anyone else make are based to a large degree in individual experiences. If you've played a wider array of games and/or played for a longer time, then you may very well have a perspective that helpfully contextualizes other people's claims. There is a way to introduce that perspective and participate in a conversation that does not imply that others are disqualified from participating. For examples of how do to this, see @Campbell 's posts.

Wow. The level of irony in that last sentence is staggering, outside of the insult to @Campbell by calling him properly deferential. This is more of the "if you want to tell me something, you have to be nice and validate me before introducing an idea I might disagree with.. On the other hand, if you aren't, then it's your fault when you get treated poorly. After all, you deserve it for your failings."

 

[Campbell]

@Snarf Zagyg

I think you show a fundamentally flawed understanding of the communities and games you are making comparative judgements about. The only meaningful difference on this score is the size of the communities. Are you honestly going to claim that Apocalypse World is a not a flexible, hackable game, mostly guarded by norms? Those norms are different. Sure. The idea that the community surrounding D&D is somehow more experimental and less rigid than the indie RPG community seems fairly rich to me. What are you basing that claim on? Have you seen itch.io?