D&D 5E Heteroglossia and D&D: Why D&D Speaks in a Multiplicity of Playing Styles

[Gradine]

Okay, then you're using extremely low bars.

I don't know how to respond to this. The aesthetics are what they are, and that is how, in my view, D&D meets each of them. That's literally all I was doing. I don't know what the "bar" would even be for in this instance.

I completely disagree that they're left behind. This requires defining Discovery as only how D&D works the exploration pillar -- again going for the tautological to exclude others. If you look at the list from the source of the concepts, Discovery is much broader than this and achieved very easily by Dresden Files -- not at all negated. It's only by narrowly defining the terms to apply to D&Disms that you can exclude other games. That's still tautological.

That may or may not be true. I'm more familiar with Dresden Files' character and world generation than over the course of play. But I think of Discovery as thus: the sense of Discovery is looking over a hill and deciding to go over it to see what is there. It's the sense that there were locations, creatures, beings, lore, that already existed, and that would have or could have been missed had I not chosen to look over that hill. That's an aspect of Discovery (I would argue a significant aspect) that cannot be attained in a setting that is collaboratively created. That's not a D&Dism. That's true of any RPG system where the worldbuilding is left to the hands and mind of the GM.

Angry also refers to the MDA paper as the source for that article, although he mangles "sensation" into sensory pleasure a good bit, and I'm not sure that's really useful to exclude descriptions and voices and imagery from "sensation" to stick only to physical props when talking about RPGs. If I play D&D via Roll20, there's nothing physical present, so does D&D on Roll20 fail "sensory pleasure?" No, of course it doesn't.

I agree! In fact I mention virtual tabletops when I describe sensory pleasure! Varying editions of D&D have done more or less to lean into the aspects of their game that could be pleasing through sensation. And there are systems which explicitly leave things like combat placing wibbly wobbly, or rely significantly less on die rolls than D&D does. In PbtA games the GM generally doesn't roll dice at all. That was enough to turn Angry away from running Dungeon World.

Note that none of this means that other TTRPGs can't be utilized to that effect: maps, handouts and other props can feature in basically any TTRPG under the sun, and these can all be reproduced in a VTT. But these are additions that need to be added by the GM; the system isn't bringing anything to the table on its own the way that D&D does.

 

[el-remmen]

Honestly, I think these discussion would be better served by the separation of "D&D the genre and tropes" and "D&D the game." This claim, and the claim in the OP about kids playing D&D without dice or rules are both speaking to D&D as genre and a set of tropes while expressly denying that D&D is, in fact, a game with actually codified rules and systems. The idea that a massive hack of D&D is still D&D rather than a different game is one I struggle with -- you've completely changed the game, why are you attributing your design work to others? Is it just a claim to membership in the club?

Because it is/was all D&D and recognizably so regardless of the changes made?

I mean, I know it is definitely possible to change the game enough to be unrecognizable as D&D and in that case you might want to call it something else. But even then, you might describe it as “kinda like D&D, but. . .”

Lastly, I know this probably irks some people but I am totally that guy that might have this exchange. . .

Me: Bye! Heading out to play some D&D
Friend: Oh? Which one?
Me: World of Darkness.

 

[Umbran]

Honestly, I think these discussion would be better served by the separation of "D&D the genre and tropes" and "D&D the game." This claim, and the claim in the OP about kids playing D&D without dice or rules are both speaking to D&D as genre and a set of tropes while expressly denying that D&D is, in fact, a game with actually codified rules and systems.

No, it isn't denying it. And I think you are making a big presumption to assert as truth that the kids without dice are speaking only to the genre and tropes, and not the systems.

I remember as a kid I could play the vast majority of a game of D&D without referring to the rulebook - I'd memorized the rules I needed. All the kids then really have to do is give a passable approximation of the action of dice to largely play by the rules.

 

[Ovi]

I don't know how to respond to this. The aesthetics are what they are, and that is how, in my view, D&D meets each of them. That's literally all I was doing. I don't know what the "bar" would even be for in this instance.

That may or may not be true. I'm more familiar with Dresden Files' character and world generation than over the course of play. But I think of Discovery as thus: the sense of Discovery is looking over a hill and deciding to go over it to see what is there. It's the sense that there were locations, creatures, beings, lore, that already existed, and that would have or could have been missed had I not chosen to look over that hill. That's an aspect of Discovery (I would argue a significant aspect) that cannot be attained in a setting that is collaboratively created. That's not a D&Dism. That's true of any RPG system where the worldbuilding is left to the hands and mind of the GM.

And Dresden Files still has this. I mean, was there never a moment in play that something new was introduced, that you discovered something you didn't know prior? The Dresden Files cooperative setting creation is no more a throttle on Discovery than playing in the Forgotten Realms Sword Coast.

I agree! In fact I mention virtual tabletops when I describe sensory pleasure! Varying editions of D&D have done more or less to lean into the aspects of their game that could be pleasing through sensation. And there are systems which explicitly leave things like combat placing wibbly wobbly, or rely significantly less on die rolls than D&D does. In PbtA games the GM generally doesn't roll dice at all. That was enough to turn Angry away from running Dungeon World.

This is, again, defining things such that D&D always survives within the category but so that you can exclude other things. It's defining not for utility but for exclusion.

Note that none of this means that other TTRPGs can't be utilized to that effect: maps, handouts and other props can feature in basically any TTRPG under the sun, and these can all be reproduced in a VTT. But these are additions that need to be added by the GM; the system isn't bringing anything to the table on its own the way that D&D does.

Wait. Maps are not sensory elements in other games because someone has to bring them while D&D has them inherently? Dice, too, I suppose, or rather than D&D has so many different dice that might be used? This is more defining to exclude.

 

[Ovi]

No, it isn't denying it. And I think you are making a big presumption to assert as truth that the kids without dice are speaking only to the genre and tropes, and not the systems.

I remember as a kid I could play the vast majority of a game of D&D without referring to the rulebook - I'd memorized the rules I needed. All the kids then really have to do is give a passable approximation of the action of dice to largely play by the rules.

The claim was broader than that -- attempting to narrow it with a specific exception of "I wasn't using a physical rulebook, but rather the rulebook as I had memorized it" doesn't seem to be addressing the actual point I was making but rather sidestepping it with a bit of rhetoric.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Through some kind of magical alchemy and intentional design, D&D manages to hit each and every aesthetic, and can often trigger multiple aesthetics at once in a way that few other games I've seen be successful at. There are built-in mechanics for every step of the way:
a. Sensory Pleasure- Dice, so many dice. Also minis and battlemaps and virtual tabletops
b. Fantasy- Backgrounds - you're not just a collection of stats, you're a character with a history in a living world
c. Narrative- Sure, there are APs, but even the sandboxiest of sandboxes is going to develop a narrative over time.
d. Challenge- This is what I'd characterize as D&D's core aesthetic. Stats, feats, monsters, traps, these are all challenges to overcome.
e. Fellowship- With the exception of heavily PVP games, D&D is ultimately about shared, collaborative problem solving. This one is endemic to most TTRPGs though. Maybe not Paranoia.
f. Discovery- Sandboxes are Discovery on overdrive, but the "Exploration" pillar is pretty neatly mapped to this aesethetic.
g. Expression- And here is the "Social Interaction" pillar, though really the variety of character choices all map to Expression, from your background, to choosing your skill and tool proficiencies. Remember that dork whose 3.x characters always "wasted" skill points in "pointless" skills like Profession? That's the expression aesthetic at play. Also, that dork was me.
I'll add, too, that DMing? That's full-time expression baby.
h. Abnegation- Arguably, D&D might be one of the best TTRPGs at fulfilling this aesthetic. It's not just the Champion Fighter, but it's a lot that. There are very simple playstyles, and there's very simple to run adventures. In my experience, the folks whose key aesthetic is Fellowship are also going to lean in hard here. And, to its credit, D&D is designed to allow a player or two to chill out and hit goblins with swords while the cognitive loads and expressive play are handled by the "party face", for instance.

Name another RPG that's designed not only to appeal to all eight of these aesthetics, but is also capable of engaging players with very different aesthetic pursuits at the same time. There aren't going to be many.

I'd say there are many, but I'm suspect a No True Scotsman coming on here. Certainly any number of generic games seem to fit all these from where I sit. Even you last one applies to some of the simpler ones well enough.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But that's not what I'm getting at. Your concentration on what the rules support misses what is popular about D&D. This is where I draw the line at the people that are hard supporter of, um ... let's say rules matter. Because D&D isn't just about what the rules support ....

Neither are most of the games I'm talking about, so that doesn't seem much of a counter.

 

[Umbran]

The claim was broader than that

It is entirely valid to push back on part of a claim, you know. I am not required to address points only as you want me to. If you don't want to engage with such, that's okay - you aren't required to.

-- attempting to narrow it with a specific exception of "I wasn't using a physical rulebook, but rather the rulebook as I had memorized it" doesn't seem to be addressing the actual point I was making

So, it is weird to go back to the OP when we are only on the second page of the thread, but let us do that...

"A group of highschoolers get together at lunch and plays D&D without dice or their rulebooks- that's D&D."

To which you asserted "...the claim in the OP about kids playing D&D without dice or rules are both speaking to D&D as genre and a set of tropes while expressly denying that D&D is, in fact, a game with actually codified rules and systems."

I am simply pushing back on those kids play as being about tropes and genre, and rejecting that there's any denying going on at all. I think you've got to do a lot of work to make those stick.

If you aren't interested in doing that work, that's fine. But you shouldn't expect folks to accept the assertion as given.

but rather sidestepping it with a bit of rhetoric.

Not rhetoric - just personal experience.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think a key thing here is "strong wants".

Snarf already noted - if you have specific desires, strong wants, as you put it, then you will likely be able find something that provides those better than D&D does.

But, if you have varied wants, or don't know specifically what you want, or are kind of a generalist as a gamer, well, D&D is likely a great fit.

But again, if you don't have strong wants, I'm not sold any number of games couldn't fill them--but D&D is the most likely one you'll hit first, and at that point since you don't have strong wants, what's going to motivate you to seek our and learn another?

And, in considering this, we can look at the results of the WotC 1999 market research and the cluster analysis they did on the results. Sean K Reynold's archive of this seems lost to the aether, unfortunately, and I haven't found an entire reposting of it anywhere yet.

To summarize - They found gamers fit into five different categories. Four of which they named Thinker, Power Gamer, Character Actor, and Storyteller. The fifth group was an admixture of the other four. Most importantly, most people fit into this admixture, rather than have one major strong type.

This latter is important when considering D&D, as opposed to other games with strong typing - to many players, the lack of strong typing may be a feature, not a bug. It isn't a thing the game lacks. It may well be that by nature, most gamers are generalists, not looking for one specific thing.

Again, there are plenty of other games without strong typing. They're just far less likely to be what someone will hit first.

 

[Umbran]

But again, if you don't have strong wants, I'm not sold any number of games couldn't fill them--but D&D is the most likely one you'll hit first,

So, I'm aware of the effect of being the big fish, and network externalities.

But, there's an implicit point I question - I am not sold on the idea that D&D owes its success only to being big. Being big is a nice place to start a new endeavor, but is not, in and of itself, self-sustaining. You speak as if, if the game sucked, those wouldn't have eroded faster than your vorpal blade goes snicker snack, much less last for nearly a half century and now grow.

Entertainments are victim to the vagaries of fashion. Being big doesn't make you immune to becoming last-year's thing.