D&D 5E [+] Explain RPG theory without using jargon

[Aldarc]

I definitely love 4e, though it doesn’t quite scratch the exploration itch as well as 5e does for me. My ideal D&D would have the gameplay procedures of 5e (or… actually maybe the gameplay procedures of B/X; 5e has them, but they’re so hidden as to be easily overlooked or ignored, while they’re positively central to B/X) with the oh so elegantly designed crunch of 4e. Maybe throw in PF2’s 3-action economy as a treat.

13th age didn’t really do it for me, it was touted by many as the spiritual successor to 4e, but whatever those folks saw in 4e must have been different than what I saw in it, because 13th Age didn’t feel like an evolution of what I loved about 4e at all,

I don't quite know if it would scratch your itch in the right way, but you may want to check out Rob Schwalb's Shadow of the Weird Wizard, which is an evolution of his earlier Shadow of the Demon Lord. I'm not sure if it has the 4e tactical crunch or 5e procedures in the way you want, but it does feel like an alternate direction that 5e could have gone. SotDL is more like a mash-up for 5e D&D and Warhammer Fantasy. At the very least it may help you hone in on what your ideal D&D would like.

 

[Charlaquin]

A lot of trad/neo-trad seems to be what 5e D&D increasingly caters to, partially as a result of Critical Role's influence and impact.

Yes, which is contributing to my growing sense of dissatisfaction with 5e. I fell in love with 5e during the D&D Next playtest because of its fundamental structure of play and exploration procedures, which were a revelation for me coming from 3e and 4e. But that definitely got gradually de-emphasized over the course of the playtest and has continued to do over the lifecycle of the edition, and while I am pleased to see some of the design improvements coming down the pipe for 5e, I’m also growing more concerned that the trajectory away from the exploration procedures that drew me to the edition in the first place is going to continue past the point of satisfying the desire the playtest first awoke in me. That’s why I’ve started dipping my toe into the OSR, which seems to have motivations that are better aligned with my own.

PP are mostly similar to Fate Points. Although there are multiple ways to earn them, one of the most common ways is that player can decide that one of their Distinctions (similar to Fate's Aspects) would hinder them, so they downgrade a Distinction die (d8 -> d4) in return for 1 PP, which they can use in a variety of ways, including powering special abilities (SFX).

Yeah, I mean, they’re another metacurrency mechanic. Im familiar with the concept and I don’t have strong positive or negative feelings about them. They’re perfectly cromulent mechanics as far as I’m concerned. Certainly valuable as player-motivators, though they suffer a bit from generally not being tied to anything concrete in the fiction. That’s neither a pain point for me, nor a compelling feature, it just… is.

IME, I have found that a people who dislike Fate's invoking of a Trouble tend to find Cortex's Plot Points a little more palatable.

Ah.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’m running a game of Torchbearer for @AbdulAlhazred , @kenada , and @niklinna presently. Its an example of one of the most unique games ever on the market because of its deep and intentional love affair with incoherency. It sits there at every moment of play threatening to be the most incoherent play experience possible. How and why does it do this? And why is it unique? I’m glad you asked:

* Is is the most unabashedly and most brutally Gamist engine you have ever experienced. The game is ridiculously demanding in every moment of play for the players to play skillfully and in extremely intricate and interlocking ways. If they don’t play well continuously (guts, guile, tactics, strategy, sacrifice, and some 4d chess to thread thematic needles), the extreme feedback loops will catch up to them and Grind (capital G) underfoot.

* However…you have to willingly punish your PC…willingly lose…and endure that experience as a player…in order to advance and win. You cannot win without skillfully and thematically losing…a lot. You have to advocate for your character’s ethos (Goal, Belief, Creed), save your Friends, confront your (much more powerful than you) Enemies in order to access crucial resources that enable short term success and long term advancement. And you have to manage to avoid getting swept up in the moment and throwing yourself headlong into terrible (highly likely mortal) danger for the sake of Story Now priorities which will likely kill you…but you won’t (avoid getting swept up) because either it’s irresistible or you’re exhausted and your guard is down…and that is the point of play.

* The game features a Town phase that manages intense resource economy demands with Story Now play (through procedural generation of content and PC declared actions and resultant Twists that are often centered around what the PC cares about; relationships and ethos). Things can go sideways quickly.

* The game also features a Journey phase, a Camp phase, and an Adventure phase where every moment is governed deeply by Gamist priorities…but…there are intentionally lurking Story Now priorities to tempt you…to reward you…to maybe sweep you up in the moment so you do something incredibly rash despite your meticulous planning and intricate management of your intensely demanding decision-space in each situation + a huge host of resources (Turns, Light, Food/water, Nature, Instincts, Gear/Supplies/Tools/Kit, equipped weapons and armor and their perks for varying Conflicts, Checks, Fate, Persona, Disposition, Cohorts) + a hugely demanding inventory system + PC build suites + marshaled dice pools + deft uses of Wises to Help but insulate yourself from failed Test fallout.

* Twists in all phases often bring in Story Now priorities to find out what and who you’ll fight for. Are your Beliefs and Creeds real things to fight and die for or will your PC handle them with a shrewd expeditious eye. Will you tax your Nature to nothing and walk away from this life?

* The game is all conventions for play, all Gamist trappings, with deeply lurking Story Now priorities that (a) you must commit to willfully (and the GM must frame them into play) to advance and (b) you’ve got to resist or throw yourself at with wild abandon because your guard is down due to the endless struggle of play. But this designed in incoherency is the point. And the extremely unique thing about Torchbearer?

It leaves this out in the open, table-facing and on purpose.

Instead of the GM secretly resolving these moments of incoherency, it’s up for the players to resolve them and they do so openly.

Because of this orientation to play, this complete preoccupation at every moment, because of the overwhelming contrivances, it doesn’t have an Sim bone in its meticulously-designed body. There are no instances of play possessed of a quality marked by being lost in a moment of “I’m here…in this place…experiencing and exploring this world…pushing and prodding and poking to examine its causal relationships…to see how it works…to focus on characterization and ‘smelling of roses’ and benign/conflict-neutral interactions with tavern-goers and innkeeps and peddlers”…not even incidental ones.


The game is a ruthlessly Gamist grind with Story Now seduction and phantoms lurking all over the place. The Story Now moments are probably 1 out of every 9 moments of play. But despite that small ratio and despite the intensity of the Gamism, those few Story Now moments (where we get to find out about these lowly characters and be completely surprised by their grit, their merit…their undoing) often ultimately define the through line of a Town or Adventure phase and then deeply reverberate into the future.

That sounds absolutely amazing to me. I’ve heard a few off-hand mentions of Torchbearer and they have always sounded intriguing to me, but I’ve never gone and checked it out; this may be the thing that convinces me to do so. Sadly, I very much doubt the people I play with would be into it, as all but one of them struggle a lot with the crunchy stuff. But this sounds like my dream game to participate in as a player.

 

[Manbearcat]

That sounds absolutely amazing to me. I’ve heard a few off-handed mentions to Torchbearer and they have always sounded intriguing to me, but I’ve never gone and checked it out; this may be the thing that convinces me to do so. Sadly, I very much doubt the people I play with would be into it, as all but one of them struggle a lot with the crunchy stuff. But this sounds like my dream game to participate in as a player.

I always like running games for new people, so if you can find two like-minded souls that want to put up with learning the extremely rules-heavy nature of play (it’s extremely elegant but extremely rules-dense so it may not be your thing given what you’ve stated above about rules economy…but, like 4e, the density falls away somewhat after familiarity with key concepts) + are willing to suffer for the wonderful rewards (you’re likely to lose but it it will be beautiful…but every win is very satisfying)…then we can probably work out some time where I could run it for you and a few pals of yours.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yup, absolutely. But, again, to me those motivations are ultimately in service to a desire to learn what the character would do, which I keep hearing is simulationism. I seem to want simulationism by way of gamism.

I don't think GNS theory will ever place you in a single gamist/simulationist/narrativist box according to the theory. To me that highlights the difficulty of D&D players in understanding the theory and one weakness in the theory itself. It does a terrible job of describing D&D play and fails to differentiate on the kinds of nuances and distinctions many D&D players deeply care about.

I think you bring up an interesting challenge and it's one I see in other aspects of RPG theory discussion as well. While whatever things we are talking about may be truly different, can one play in such a way that X is used to produce Y? (your simulationism producing gamism or was it vice versa?)

 

[Charlaquin]

I always like running games for new people, so if you can find two like-minded souls that want to put up with learning the extremely rules-heavy nature of play (it’s extremely elegant but extremely rules-dense so it may not be your thing given what you’ve stated above about rules economy…but, like 4e, the density falls away somewhat after familiarity with key concepts) + are willing to suffer for the wonderful rewards (you’re likely to lose but it it will be beautiful…but every win is very satisfying)…then we can probably work out some time where I could run it for you and a few pals of yours.

Sounds like the Dark Souls of RPGs, and I do love me some Dark Souls. I may take you up on that at some point, if I can find a few other folks and… a few more hours in the day

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think GNS theory will ever place you in a single gamist/simulationist/narrativist box according to the theory. To me that highlights the difficulty of D&D players in understanding the theory and one weakness in the theory itself. It does a terrible job of describing D&D play and fails to differentiate on the kinds of nuances and distinctions many D&D players deeply care about.

That is thing I have been saying this entire time, yes.

I think you bring up an interesting challenge and it's one I see in other aspects of RPG theory discussion as well. While whatever things we are talking about may be truly different, can one play in such a way that X is used to produce Y? (your simulationism producing gamism or was it vice versa?)

Vice versa, I believe. If I’m understanding correctly that discovering truths about the character via interaction with the environment and scenario the GM lays out is Similationist, then that is my ultimate motivation, but it rings hollow to me unless that discovery process involves being wrung through a Gamist gauntlet.

 

[overgeeked]

That’s why I’ve started dipping my toe into the OSR, which seems to have motivations that are better aligned with my own.

Right now the gold standard for OSR games is Old-School Essentials, which is a B/X clone. There’s lots of really great stuff out for it. If you’re after more modern mechanics and a Sword & Sorcery feel, Dungeon Crawl Classics is where it’s at. I’ve heard good things about Five Torches Deep. It might align with your preferences or you might bounce off. Into the Odd and Electric Bastionland might be worth checking out, too. Ten Candles is another you might dig. The best YouTube channel for reviews and a window into the OSR is Questing Beast.

 

[Charlaquin]

Right now the gold standard for OSR games is Old-School Essentials, which is a B/X clone. There’s lots of really great stuff out for it. If you’re after more modern mechanics and a Sword & Sorcery feel, Dungeon Crawl Classics is where it’s at. I’ve heard good things about Five Torches Deep. It might align with your preferences or you might bounce off. Into the Odd and Electric Bastionland might be worth checking out, too. The best YouTube channel for reviews and a window into the OSR is Questing Beast.

Haha I’m about two steps ahead of you. Watching Questing Beast was what convinced me to look into OSR and after asking for some recommendations here I picked up the PFDs of OSE and the Advanced Fantasy rules. I like what I’ve read in them a lot, though I definitely feel the lack of a unified action resolution mechanic. The various mechanics for resolving different tasks are charming in their way, but I’d rather have one central mechanic. I also looked at 5 Torches Deep, which is pretty cool, but my main concern with it would be the risk of pitching it to a group of players only to be met with “so why not just play 5e?” (Which tangentially was also my problem when thinking about using Adventures in Middle Earth, unless specifically for a Lord of the Rings campaign). What I’d really love to do for my players is kitbash together an amalgamation of OSE and Dungeon World for them to try. I have looked at World of Dungeons and Freebooters of the Frontier, but neither of them synthesize DW with OSR in the way I’d want out of such a thing.

 

[hawkeyefan]

One of the things I find a bit sad is how much OSR and narrative game fans tend to clash. Both types of games are largely trying to resolve the same issues they find with the modern versions of D&D and other games.

They do go about addressing those issues in different ways, so of course the games play differently. But they have their roots in the same dissatisfaction with mainstream games.