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

[overgeeked]

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 PDFs 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.

Cool. Welcome to the rabbit hole. Hope you get to actually play some of the games you want. Might be worth branching out and finding more people to play with. I hear VTTs are quite popular lately.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I suspect that the reason that describing D&D's play loop as "the players take actions to prompt the GM to provide more information" is controversial is because it's reductionist to the point that (IMO) one can reasonably infer implied ridicule.

It would be like describing PbtA games as: "the players take actions to prompt the GM to make life worse for their characters". Or, more broadly, describing all interactive verbal human social interactions as: "talking at people to prompt them to talk to you". These descriptions are, in some sense, "accurate", but they're so devoid of context and purpose as to appear derogatory.

I know you play and like D&D, so I assume you do not mean to ridicule it with your description of its play loop. My intent is only to share my perception of why such descriptions are controversial. At the very least, that's why I personally find such descriptions objectionable.

Let's look at a dungeon. How does the play in a dungeon progress? The GM describes a room, a quick gloss of possibly interesting contents, the exits, any marks of note, and, of course, any obvious threats. The players then take actions which prompt the GM to expand on any of these. If they search the contents, the GM provides additional information. If they investigate a threat, like a possible trap, they prompt the GM to provide more information. If they investigate a mark of note, they prompt the GM to provide more information. If they exit the room via a noted passage, they prompt the GM to provide more information.

This is clearly how it's supposed to work. It's part and parcel of "exploring the world." You do things to explore the world and the GM serves up more world! If you find this reductionist, if you find this ridicule, you really need to reexamine what you think is happening. This is the crux of play in D&D. There's nothing at all wrong with it -- it's clearly very successful and fun for many people!

Could you clarify where you disagree? Do you not think @Ovinomancer's description is controversial, don't think it's reductionist, or don't think it's reductionist to the extent to reasonably imply ridicule?

Stripping out the mysticism that has built up around how D&D works is bound to be controversial. If you're extremely attached to that mysticism, I suppose it can feel like ridicule. But it's not reductionist, it's a clean description of the core loop of play. GM describes a scene, players take action, this prompts the GM to narrate more of the scene. Yes, there are mechanics the GM can choose to engage with, but many of those mechanics are aimed at success getting more of the details from the GM (perception, investigation, insight all are clear, but even many of the physical skills, like thieves' tools are vehicles to open doors or chests and get more details). I recognize this, and it's made my running of D&D better for recognizing it. I know what my primary job is, at it's core level, and can keep that in mind as I run. One of my main jobs as a 5e GM is to make the setting sing and the players feel they are a part of it. And I do that with deft execution of this loop I've identified.

 

[Charlaquin]

Cool. Welcome to the rabbit hole. Hope you get to actually play some of the games you want. Might be worth branching out and finding more people to play with. I hear VTTs are quite popular lately.

Alas, I am too attached to the tactility of in-person play to find VTTs very satisfying. Besides, while I have developed some specific tastes in RPGs, all of these agendas and whatever come secondary to having a good time with my friends. I’d play Monopoly with them if that was the best I could get. My hope is that I’ll be able to sell them on the premise of an open-table campaign; everyone can play, even though we can’t all fit in my house at once or find a day we’re all available for! No obligation to show up for any given session, just let me know a week in advance when you and up to 4 others want to do a delve into the dungeon and I’ll make sure I’m ready for you by then. Oh, and to make it easier for everyone to manage all their characters’ stats and abilities and stuff, I was thinking we should use this nice, streamlined system that’s built for exactly this kind of play!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Yeah. It's not that these categorisations are 'wrong' but they are still just choices. When putting things into categories we must choose which features we think are fundamental and which incidental. And that choice means the categorisation you make will be better at highlighting certain types of differences while eliding others. And that also means it will not resonate with people who will not place the same value on the differences you chose to focus on. If you're used to categorisations by colour and someone else tries to tell you that red and blue triangle obviously belong to the same category you will be confused. And of course that is much simpler than categorising far more nebulous and subjective things like the RPG preferences.

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?)

This sort of amalgamation and support between "agendas" is something I would want to talk about more, rather than the endless debates about how things are defined. And of course even that we talk here about different agendas supporting each other is a categorisation choice. One could completely validly categorise such a simulation-based-gamism as its own thing rather than a multi-class build.

 

[overgeeked]

Alas, I am too attached to the tactility of in-person play to find VTTs very satisfying. Besides, while I have developed some specific tastes in RPGs, all of these agendas and whatever come secondary to having a good time with my friends. I’d play Monopoly with them if that was the best I could get. My hope is that I’ll be able to sell them on the premise of an open-table campaign; everyone can play, even though we can’t all fit in my house at once or find a day we’re all available for! No obligation to show up for any given session, just let me know a week in advance when you and your to 4 others want to do a delve into the dungeon and I’ll make sure I’m ready for you by then. Oh, and to make it easier for everyone to manage all their characters’ stats and abilities and stuff, I was thinking we should use this nice, streamlined system that’s built for exactly this kind of play!

Nice. Good luck.

I’m assuming you’re aware of West Marches and the Alexandrian, then? Not sure about the purpose build system. OSR stuff definitely comes the closest, I think.

 

[Aldarc]

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 IronswornI’d want out of such a thing.

Does your preference lean towards PbtA with OSE trappings or OSE with PbtA trappings?

I think that Forged in the Dark hack would also work. Steven Lumpkin (SilentOsiris) is working on Marches in the Dark (WiP), which tries to meld FitD with West Marches style campaigns.

Edit: I would also add another obvious candidate - Ironsworn - which you could definitely run solo at first if you are having an issue with finding players. @innerdude can speak much more about the system than I can regarding overall procedures.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Alas, I am too attached to the tactility of in-person play to find VTTs very satisfying. Besides, while I have developed some specific tastes in RPGs, all of these agendas and whatever come secondary to having a good time with my friends. I’d play Monopoly with them if that was the best I could get.

I agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure I like my friends quite that much!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

I posted on the subject a while back, but I might as well reiterate it.

The main game I run is 5e, heavily modified (concepts from diceless games and B/X etc.), but a while back I encountered FKR, which reminded me of seeing middle school and high school kids playing D&D at lunch without books or dice.

Anyway, I spent some time running FKR (Free Kriegspiel Renaissance) games, which you can either DIY or find as indie, rules-lite games, often consisting of a few pages. If you're looking for streamlined play of the type you seem to want ... well, you can't get more streamlined that that.

In addition to being fun in and of itself, it also re-invigorated my overall play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure I like my friends quite that much!

Honestly seems like something you'd do to people you don't like.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Anyway, I spent some time running FKR (Free Kriegspiel Renaissance) games, which you can either DIY or find as indie, rules-lite games, often consisting of a few pages. If you're looking for streamlined play of the type you seem to want ... well, you can't get more streamlined that that.

I'm intrigued and I have meant to look into this FKR business. Could you perhaps provide a link or otherwise point us toward some solid iteration of rules (or perhaps it is "rules") used for this?