D&D General Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

[Thomas Shey]

Ah, so it's all the same gameplay. No separation of combat from the rest. That would take some getting used to, but I guess that works.

I think I'd find it unsatisfactory, but its hard to object to it in principal.

 

[RhaezDaevan]

Oh, that's a great point! You can't understand a game without reading the whole thing -- just a chapter isn't enough. I suppose, now that you have had this revelation, you'll stop asking people to explain play to you piecemeal and accept you don't get it at all until you've had time for serious reading?

If you feel I'm wasting your time, then feel free to do...anything else. You're definitely coming off as grumpy. Please do something you enjoy and find peace.

Or was that just a specious argument thrown out because you have no intention of looking at it and just want someone to say some magical set of words that you can put together to dismiss the whole thing. Like how you have a very bad take on the BitD loadout system but yet feel confident in dismissing it as an unserious game only suited for zany cartoon antics? Which, by the way, is extremely dismissive of anyone that feels BitD actually delivers on it's promise of grim and gritty life of a criminal. So, yeah, protip, if you don't want to look like you're dismissing people's play, don't use terms to describe it like not "serious" or "cartoon" or "zany" or "unpleasant." No amount of appealing to the Dude makes this less dismissive.

I said specifically the stuff popping into existence that hasn't been pre-established gave me the feeling of a zany cartoon. Not the whole game. I already decided that it wasn't the game for me from all the talk of it being a high intensity, everyone out to get you type of game. That alone sounds unpleasant to me. You are free to to find joy in it if that's what you like.

You are quick to defend your preferences but you then demonize mine. Maybe my path to a Story Now game that suits me requires composing a list of them and then cross them out until I'm left with a shorter list that I can actually afford to invest in. Or maybe I do try one or more out and still end up not liking them. I hope you can come to terms with that as a possibility.

 

[RhaezDaevan]

I think I'd find it unsatisfactory, but its hard to object to it in principal.

Combat for some reason is one of the few times a separate "mini-game" within the game feels more acceptable to me. Probably just because of what I'm use to. I can see how some games would just have it resolve the same as any other part though.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ah, OK. Definitely a different way to do things.
You say 2 to 3 dangers and 1 to 3 grim portents. Does the GM decide the number themselves or is it a roll?

Its just up to the GM and I'm sure if you have some reason to diverge from that, then its not that 'hard and fast'. There's a good 15 page section that goes over how to build fronts and how to use them, but its like GM-side advice for any game, you aren't utterly bound by it.

So each dungeon is less a place to visit and more a house on fire? Do something, or else?

I guess the answer is, in a certain sense 'yes'. Now, the interesting question is how you go about portraying things. I mean, 'on fire' IMHO has a connotation of extreme urgency and time criticality. I don't know that this is a necessary element of things in a game. Stonetop for instance, which is actually just basically a tweaked Dungeon World with certain specific setting concepts, works in terms of seasons and such, so action could be drawn out over a long period of time. I don't see why that cannot be the case in DW either. Maybe the PCs mess with something, and a year later there's a grim portent, in the meantime they might be doing something else. In fictional terms maybe they spent a year growing corn! I mean, DW talks in terms of PCs being adventurers, but its kind of up to the participants to really decide what that means. Stonetop started out as a Dungeon World campaign after all.

I've personally never experienced modules for any version of D&D, so I don't get the reference to Caves of Chaos. I'll take your word for it that they're very different.

I'm not much of a module guy myself. TSR Module B2 for Basic D&D is kind of a classic. There is a 'Keep' where the PCs base themselves, and then a couple of miles away is this large cave complex filled with orcs, goblins, bugbears, etc. There's certainly nothing saying the DM couldn't band together the monsters and have them attack the Keep, but nothing in the adventure anticipates that or even suggests it. B2's Caves of Chaos are basically a static sort of dungeon, although there are some notes stating that the monsters may move around or prepare traps if the PCs leave and come back (which you pretty much have to do, its a large dungeon).

Oh boy. Since you've asked nicely:

• I don't like skill challenges, or at least I've never experienced a good one. Felt like a mini-games and took me out of the fiction.
• I don't like the powers. Every class getting the same amount didn't sit well with me and having to switch them out every few levels was even worse. They should have been a smaller pool of powers that scaled with level and different classes should have gotten different amounts of them. For example Fighters being focused on at wills, while wizards would get a bunch of dailies and maybe they'd bother get some encounter powers (an idea off the top of my head).
• I don't like the idea of players meta-shopping and giving the DM a wish list for treasure that will show up in later dungeons.
• I don't like that Epic tier is a core part of the game. It should have been opt-in as a separate book or line of books.
• Though I don't like how frail characters start as in other versions, the amount of HP everyone starts with was a tad too much. Should have had an option to start a bit weaker to begin with.
• I don't like how the inclusion of long lists of powers and the epic levels meant there wasn't enough room for all the expected core classes and races to be in the first rule books, requiring more investment in later volumes just to have what most earlier versions had. Basically the Player's handbook 1 and 2 races and classes in one volume would have been better.

For those who love all the above, I'm not trying to yuck your yum. There was too much to house rule so I had to leave it all behind. For reference I had issues with every version of D&D I've played or ran but the others are much easier to house rule.

Well, certainly over time my games took on a rather different tenor than older edition D&D. Its a game that IMHO is best approached as almost fantasy super heroes. It addresses one of the big problems with classic D&D, which is just that it was plain tedious to muck around doing non-heroic stuff, especially at low levels. 4e is certainly not a perfect game, but played in a specific way a lot of it hangs together and does its thing well.

I've not looked at 13th age all that deeply, but maybe it would be more for me than 4e. I don't like the idea of those preset characters, Elf Queen, Dwarf King or whatever they're called, but that's easier to house rule away and replace with home-made ones.

Well, I haven't played a ton of 13th Age. I don't think the icons are intended to necessarily be used exactly as-is. They kind of represent a good set of archetypes of 'powers behind the scenes' to work with. It seems like an easy enough thing where you would design a more specific version of the milieu that had a small handful at most of icons involved, possibly as few as 2.

I have played SWSE and thought it was OK. From what I've heard better star wars RPGs have come out since that better capture the feel of the franchise.

I don't know, the current one felt rather blah to me. I mean, it was interesting at first, but the wonky dice begin to feel annoying at a certain point, and the skill tree system it used was kind of very limiting.

OK, so it's expected that each threat is able to be dealt with in some way? Or is there some of the classic "you meet the dragon and have to run away until you're stronger, but you'll be back..."?

Umm, you could run away. I mean, if the PCs meet a dragon right off they will be too weak to fight with it. So, yeah, it may be a lingering Danger and the GM could push it forward into view again even if the PCs don't ever go back to it. OTOH I think good GMing also takes into account what people want to do. If the players are like "dragons are boring, give us something else" then its sort of a dick move to just keep hammering on that dragon. Maybe at some point the Barbarian decides he wants to get so rich he can roll in gold and takes up that thread again. Perhaps the GM uses a portent to remind him of that, lol. Maybe the dragon steals HIS treasure!

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'd be OK with what you're describing part of the time, and then mix in some quests/missions that don't affect the world. Sometimes you go places just to get loot, only your own lives are at stake.

I don't see why those can't exist in Dungeon World, OTOH there is that sort of 'moves snowball', so once the PCs set out in a direction, events are likely to take on a certain life of their own. That doesn't mean the consequences have to be earth shaking, it could just be everyone's hide is on the line.

I think in another part of the thread there was talk of high stakes Story Now versus low stakes Story Now? Maybe some hybrid between those two would be more my style. Anybody know which are which? BitD definitely sounds like the high stakes kind, DW sounding close to it as well. Not sure what's an example of the low stakes Story Now.

Well, I mean, 'stakes', they can be anything. It could be your self-respect, or your money, or something even bigger. I mean, yes, some games are likely to be more designed to portray less earth shaking things than others. I don't see why a Story Now game can't deal with almost any situation that has some degree of drama.

I do plan to read it when I have time. Looks a bit like gritty low-magic fantasy, is that the intended genre?

Yeah, I get a pretty S&S kind of vibe from it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Combat for some reason is one of the few times a separate "mini-game" within the game feels more acceptable to me. Probably just because of what I'm use to. I can see how some games would just have it resolve the same as any other part though.

Well, honestly, I'd rather more games had more minigames for things that involve some serious engagement, rather than less. But for people who are serious about the speed/get the system out of the way issues, avoiding that with combat is no more unreasonable than anywhere else.

 

[RhaezDaevan]

Its just up to the GM and I'm sure if you have some reason to diverge from that, then its not that 'hard and fast'. There's a good 15 page section that goes over how to build fronts and how to use them, but its like GM-side advice for any game, you aren't utterly bound by it.

That's a good thing to hear. Any game that doesn't allow some tinkering for the individual table is definitely not for me. I like when groups make the game their own.

I guess the answer is, in a certain sense 'yes'. Now, the interesting question is how you go about portraying things. I mean, 'on fire' IMHO has a connotation of extreme urgency and time criticality. I don't know that this is a necessary element of things in a game. Stonetop for instance, which is actually just basically a tweaked Dungeon World with certain specific setting concepts, works in terms of seasons and such, so action could be drawn out over a long period of time. I don't see why that cannot be the case in DW either. Maybe the PCs mess with something, and a year later there's a grim portent, in the meantime they might be doing something else. In fictional terms maybe they spent a year growing corn! I mean, DW talks in terms of PCs being adventurers, but its kind of up to the participants to really decide what that means. Stonetop started out as a Dungeon World campaign after all.

Maybe house on fire was a bad analogy. Perhaps a leaky pipe in the basement is better? It'll eventually flood if you do nothing but not an immediate risk. Though maybe it's a range between the two extremes.

I'm not much of a module guy myself. TSR Module B2 for Basic D&D is kind of a classic. There is a 'Keep' where the PCs base themselves, and then a couple of miles away is this large cave complex filled with orcs, goblins, bugbears, etc. There's certainly nothing saying the DM couldn't band together the monsters and have them attack the Keep, but nothing in the adventure anticipates that or even suggests it. B2's Caves of Chaos are basically a static sort of dungeon, although there are some notes stating that the monsters may move around or prepare traps if the PCs leave and come back (which you pretty much have to do, its a large dungeon).

Ah, OK. Thanks for the explanation.

Well, certainly over time my games took on a rather different tenor than older edition D&D. Its a game that IMHO is best approached as almost fantasy super heroes. It addresses one of the big problems with classic D&D, which is just that it was plain tedious to muck around doing non-heroic stuff, especially at low levels. 4e is certainly not a perfect game, but played in a specific way a lot of it hangs together and does its thing well.

Actually, now that you mention it. I kind of wish it had just been a super hero game instead of a version of D&D. I'm kind of surprised that doesn't already exist by now. I would actually give it another shot if it was superheroes. The powers would be a lot more palatable for me that way. I'd still probably just grit my teeth through the skill challenge part but the rest of my complaints would probably disappear with just that change alone. I actually bought the first set of books because "hey new D&D, I'll like that" then after playing it a while I noticed it didn't feel like D&D to me.

Well, I haven't played a ton of 13th Age. I don't think the icons are intended to necessarily be used exactly as-is. They kind of represent a good set of archetypes of 'powers behind the scenes' to work with. It seems like an easy enough thing where you would design a more specific version of the milieu that had a small handful at most of icons involved, possibly as few as 2.

Yeah, I was pretty sure they were not critical to play. Thanks for confirming.

I don't know, the current one felt rather blah to me. I mean, it was interesting at first, but the wonky dice begin to feel annoying at a certain point, and the skill tree system it used was kind of very limiting.

Ah, OK. Good to know. If I'm going to play an RPG based on an established franchise I'd want it to feel like the source material, though obviously with new characters and situations.

Umm, you could run away. I mean, if the PCs meet a dragon right off they will be too weak to fight with it. So, yeah, it may be a lingering Danger and the GM could push it forward into view again even if the PCs don't ever go back to it. OTOH I think good GMing also takes into account what people want to do. If the players are like "dragons are boring, give us something else" then its sort of a dick move to just keep hammering on that dragon. Maybe at some point the Barbarian decides he wants to get so rich he can roll in gold and takes up that thread again. Perhaps the GM uses a portent to remind him of that, lol. Maybe the dragon steals HIS treasure!

Sorry, I'm probably still thinking in exploration terms.

I don't see why those can't exist in Dungeon World, OTOH there is that sort of 'moves snowball', so once the PCs set out in a direction, events are likely to take on a certain life of their own. That doesn't mean the consequences have to be earth shaking, it could just be everyone's hide is on the line.

Well, I mean, 'stakes', they can be anything. It could be your self-respect, or your money, or something even bigger. I mean, yes, some games are likely to be more designed to portray less earth shaking things than others. I don't see why a Story Now game can't deal with almost any situation that has some degree of drama.

Ah, OK. So are the stakes generally always known in advance? You may have already answered that, but I can't find the answer.

Yeah, I get a pretty S&S kind of vibe from it.

From what I've read so far it looks a bit interesting. I don't know how I feel about the Endure Stress move though. The mechanics look OK, but the idea of sharing my characters feelings with the group rubs me the wrong way. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. Is it "your son is dead, roll Endure Stress", or is it "your son is dead, how does that make you feel? Oh, despair? Then roll Endure Stress". My hope is the former.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If you feel I'm wasting your time, then feel free to do...anything else. You're definitely coming off as grumpy. Please do something you enjoy and find peace.

I said specifically the stuff popping into existence that hasn't been pre-established gave me the feeling of a zany cartoon. Not the whole game. I already decided that it wasn't the game for me from all the talk of it being a high intensity, everyone out to get you type of game. That alone sounds unpleasant to me. You are free to to find joy in it if that's what you like.

Yeah, okay, so this bit of the game is unserious, and a zany cartoon, but that doesn't say anything about the rest of the game!



Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

You are quick to defend your preferences but you then demonize mine. Maybe my path to a Story Now game that suits me requires composing a list of them and then cross them out until I'm left with a shorter list that I can actually afford to invest in. Or maybe I do try one or more out and still end up not liking them. I hope you can come to terms with that as a possibility.

Um, where have I demonized any of your preferences? Unless it's your preference to leap to unwarranted assumptions about other games and then declare them to be unpleasant or unserious? I'll admit, I may have criticized that last one a bit, but demonized? Nah, that looks really different.

Look, I know at least two people, personally, and more digitally that have actually played these games, get them well, and don't like them. I'm 100% okay with that. What I am a bit prickly about is the misrepresentation of how a game works being used to dismiss it, usually with coded badwrongfun terms, like not serious or unpleasant. And then the deployment of "it's just, like, my opinion, man," as if appeal to the Dude is a valid argument. If you show up and demean something, especially unfairly, then it being your opinion isn't some magic cure-all to make it okay. We all know it's your opinion. That doesn't make it less intentionally dismissive.

 

[FrogReaver]

Look, I know at least two people, personally, and more digitally that have actually played these games, get them well, and don't like them. I'm 100% okay with that. What I am a bit prickly about is the misrepresentation of how a game works being used to dismiss it, usually with coded badwrongfun terms, like not serious or unpleasant. And then the deployment of "it's just, like, my opinion, man," as if appeal to the Dude is a valid argument. If you show up and demean something, especially unfairly, then it being your opinion isn't some magic cure-all to make it okay. We all know it's your opinion. That doesn't make it less intentionally dismissive.

Out of curiosity, how could someone dismiss those games as not for them in a way that doesn't come across to you as them being declared 'badwrongfun'?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Out of curiosity, how could someone dismiss those games as not for them in a way that doesn't come across to you as them being declared 'badwrongfun'?

Nope. My complaining about obviously insulting statements doesn't mean I have to draw you a line.

 

[pemerton]

I said specifically the stuff popping into existence that hasn't been pre-established gave me the feeling of a zany cartoon.

All RPGs involve authorship. There's a point in time when something or other is not part of the shared fiction, and then there's a subsequent point when it is.

The inventory system in BitD isn't special in this respect.

Out of curiosity, how could someone dismiss those games as not for them in a way that doesn't come across to you as them being declared 'badwrongfun'?

I'm not @Ovinomancer, but I have some thoughts about this.

I think anyone who criticises a RPG because it involves authorship hasn't thought very hard about what happens during their own play.

For instance, in D&D, when the PCs "go shopping" all sorts of stuff "pops into existence" without having been pre-established - iron spikes, lengths of rope, weapons, etc - and the players write it down on their equipment lists.

So someone criticising BitD because players are allowed to write stuff down on their equipment list seems to be making a pretty silly point.