D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Helpful NPC Thom]

@pemerton, Fate definitely has that issue.

@Crimson Longinus, I'm not disagreeing, but some groups like D&D as a wargame. Ask Mike Mornard his opinions on this.

 

[pemerton]

some groups like D&D as a wargame.

Right! In which case characterisation does become more of an optional flourish.

The fiction still matters, but it's the fiction of architecture and furniture and geography, not of moods and manners. (And for this sort of play Fate or MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic is no good at all, precisely because of the way it requires fiction to be "mechanised" before it figures in play.)

 

[Lyxen]

Badwrongfunning? Where did I once imply that people who play D&D in a certain way are somehow playing the game badly?

When you say that people are wrong ? By the way, I did not say that your interpretation of the game was wrong this is you putting words in my mouth, the only thing I said is that your interpretation does not follow what the rulebooks tell you, which is not bad in any way since the same rulebooks also tell you to do what you want with them.

I said that skillful play in 5e utilizes the mechanics to achieve a desired outcome. Not using these mechanics to achieve an outcome isn't "badwrong," it just isn't skillful. When I play 5e, I play unskillfully because number crunching isn't my jam. I could play more skillfully by multiclassing and (prior to Tasha's change) picking an optimal race to suit a particular class, but I have little interest in doing so.

You are oscillating wildly between various definitions of skilled, this last part about multiclassing for optimisation is going straight into powergamer's territory.

 

[Lyxen]

Disagreed.
To me "skilled play" includes, if not complete system mastery, at least enough knowledge of how the game mechanically works so as to be able to play without instruction a vast majority of the time. And this does enhance the game.

Not necessarily. It can be if you are playing the game fairly technically, but for me, in general, technical play slows down the game and makes it more technical and therefore less story-orientated. I have run many games for complete beginners using cards such as the one below, there certainly was no skill involved by anyone's criterion, but they enjoyed it a lot.

I have even run a game for my 5 years old grandson who can barely count, he is still playing a paladin with a few powers, and he knows nothing about the technicalities, he even has trouble adding the bonus to the d20 when the number is high. But still his "messire Gabriel" is a high point of our interactions.

A player can do so only if someone does a lot of mechanical hand-holding e.g. constant instruction on what dice to roll when, constant reminding on how spells work, etc. How is this the least bit fair to the one doing the hand-holding, never mind everyone else at the table?

Because there are very easy ways around this, see above.

There's learning curve for new players, sure. My expectation - and I don't think it's unreasonable - is that those new players will eventually get past that and have learned how play in [system in use at that table] actually works.

If that is the game that you want to run, why not, but I've had people participating in 10-years long campaigns, who still had not seriously read any of the rulebooks, but still obviously not only enjoyed the game but did not drag anyone down.

If you are running a more technical game, indeed I understand it's important, but if it's story-orientated, there is no such requirement, proving that "skilled play" is not necessary. And when you could it with some of its annoyances (arrogance, decision paralysis, etc.), I totally stand by my claims that it is unnecessary for fun and can even get in the way of it.

 

[Lyxen]

Flipping it around: I like Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic a system, and have played it a fair bit. But one frustration with it is that fiction often doesn't matter to resolution - ie remains mere colour - unless it is "mechanised" as a Distinction or Trait of some sort. So a character can't just, for instance, get a benefit to sneaking or sniping by lurking in the shadows: they have to succeed at an action to create a Lurking in the Shadows asset. This aspect of the mechanics works very smoothly in the process of play, but it can mean that the "scenery" sometimes feels a bit flat.

And I honestly don't understand why you bend the 4e powers to achieve what you want (I'm not saying it's wrong to do it, by the way, for me it's the only way to play 4e and still get the story that I want) and why you can't bend these kind of systems the same way.

For me, the most freeform games I've played are Amber Diceless RPG (and Nobilis and this to a much lesser extent), and in these, the resolution is extremely simple, there are only four attributes, if the differences are wide, one side wins easily (and you describe it), if it's more subtle (knowing that it's never equal), then the descriptions matter much more.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

When you say that people are wrong ? By the way, I did not say that your interpretation of the game was wrong this is you putting words in my mouth, the only thing I said is that your interpretation does not follow what the rulebooks tell you, which is not bad in any way since the same rulebooks also tell you to do what you want with them.

You are oscillating wildly between various definitions of skilled, this last part about multiclassing for optimisation is going straight into powergamer's territory.

The game's authors are wrong, period. I never said playing D&D to "have fun" is badwrongfun (you are repeatedly misinterpreting what I am stating), I said their claims that "winning" D&D is "having fun" is incorrect because there is a defined win/loss state in the rules.

My previous statement regarding skillful play stands:

I would describe "skilled play" as a matter of utilizing a game's system to achieve a desired outcome. For better and for worse, D&D's primary system is combat mechanics and character builds, and utilizing those mechanics typically clashes with the roleplaying elements of the game (at least from the perspective of many players). In that sense, there are two opposed desired outcomes: maximizing character power (desired outcome: winning combat, survival) and fiction-first theatrical roleplaying (desired outcome: embodying a character within the game and acting according to his persona).

 

[Lanefan]

Not necessarily. It can be if you are playing the game fairly technically, but for me, in general, technical play slows down the game and makes it more technical and therefore less story-orientated.

If two years in someone is still asking what die to roll for a saving throw in D&D, there's a problem either with my teaching or their learning.

And no matter what, unless you're using a diceless system you're going to hit "technical" play now and then. In D&D it's most commonly seen in combat - occasionally exploration can get technical as well - and players need to learn at least the basics of how these things work.

I have run many games for complete beginners using cards such as the one below, there certainly was no skill involved by anyone's criterion, but they enjoyed it a lot.

View attachment 146229

That card's a good idea but it assumes the bonuses almost never change. In many situations, bonuses can change from combat to combat and even from round to round.

 

[pemerton]

And no matter what, unless you're using a diceless system you're going to hit "technical" play now and then.

A diceless system can still be technical. Think of managing a mid-to-high level AD&D caster's spell slots.

A system with dice can avoid being technical. In different ways, both Prince Valiant and Classic Traveller come close.

 

[pemerton]

For me, the most freeform games I've played are Amber Diceless RPG (and Nobilis and this to a much lesser extent), and in these, the resolution is extremely simple, there are only four attributes, if the differences are wide, one side wins easily (and you describe it), if it's more subtle (knowing that it's never equal), then the descriptions matter much more.

Ok. I wasn't talking about freeform play.

And I honestly don't understand why you bend the 4e powers to achieve what you want (I'm not saying it's wrong to do it, by the way, for me it's the only way to play 4e and still get the story that I want) and why you can't bend these kind of systems the same way.

I play 4e as 4e: powers are a player resource to be used in various ways.

I play MHRP as MHRP: Scene Distinctions are a GM-established "mechanisation" of the fiction that can feed into resolution in various ways.

In their resolution processes, the two games have little in common beyond being scene-framing systems.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes. 3e's intents were rendered public a few weeks ago, see here.

View attachment 146168

Once more, you don't have to play any edition the way it's designed, but it was palpable all along, and 5e, which has a different design intent also feels very different in the way the rules and play are laid out. As for 4e, it's even more obvious when you consider that the DM's role is mostly a referee.

Oh, good grief. That's the guide for products, and if you read the other screenshots, it becomes extremely clear that "competitive" is in relation to market share and not play. It's competitive in the business sense.

I mean... if you read the Do's and Don'ts posted immediately after, it is insanely clear that it's about being market competitive.

Not at all, see above.



It all depends what you mean by "skilled play", which is something that I've much more seen applied to combat than anything else.

I've defined it multiple times, how can you possibly be uncertain what I mean by skilled play?

It goes away by disclaiming skilled play as an intent, as it removes the stress from the player.

I don't see how that is remotely possible. "Bob, you've had a bad day, and we're playing D&D now, and your character that you've been playing the last few years and really love is unconscious and about to be eaten if this roll comes up higher than 3. But hey, don't worry, no stress, because skilled play is off the table, man." I mean, this is you asserting skilled play is a source of stress and expecting everyone to agree with you. As you posted in the last exchange, where you showcased moments that you played skillfully (and I agreed), I'm sure those moments didn't cause you undue and special levels of stress, yes?

As I've said, if you enjoy skilled play and it causes no problem at your table, it's fine, I'm not badwrongfunning it. I'm saying that, just like powergaming, it's a mindset that permeates a table and causes trouble if everyone is not aligned about the objectives of the game.

In particular, I've seen people literally chew up other players for making a "mistake". That is not acceptable behaviour and it only occurs because these people believe that skilled play is critical to the game.

No, it's not, but this isn't a problem with skilled play or the ideas therein, it's jerks at the table. Deal with the jerks.

You know, I'm all for peaceful discussion, but unneeded needling will not keep us in the comfort zone.

Irony.

And yet, you take any single opportunity here to brag about your instances of "skilled play".

I do? I mean, it's the immediate topic of discussion, and I was providing examples of it. I don't have at hand examples of your skilled play, so I used ones I was very familiar with. This, apparently, is bad behavior in your eyes -- providing personal examples of a thing that is the topic of discussion. Given I rarely provide such moments of play anywhere else, this statement reads as you looking for a way to attack me personally rather than engage in discussion. And so immediately after the statement above! Irony, indeed.

Good.



I never said "thwarted", I just mentioned "less technically optimal". For example trying to disarm / bull rush a monster rather than making significant damage, because it looks cool in the environment, or it's the character's way of fighting, his signature move or whatever.

I'll stick with thwarted. If something is logical in the fiction and genre obvious but the mechanics reduce it's effect just because that's what the mechanics are, then an action predicated on the genre logic and fictional situation is being thwarted by mechanics that don't care for either. Frankly, I see this as a failure of the GM for not properly aligning the fiction.

And again I'm not badwrongfunning you, if it's what you like at your table, it's perfect. HOWEVER, I've seen a lot of instances where that expectation of "skilled play" was actually the way to deny fun to people and tables, which is why I don't agree that it's such an universal aim of the game and always making the game better, that's all.

I agree it isn't universal either. Shocking, isn't it? Maybe if you paid attention to what I've said rather than imagining something else -- like when I defined skilled play and it didn't align with your assumption, did you engage my definition or did you attack me based on your assumptions?