D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

Status
Not open for further replies.

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
I agree, although I also quibble. The rules should support the themes, and the more strongly they do then the more system matters. (Cyberpunk, Horror, &c.)
I guess my response here is just... that's a good goal to have, but successful games (both in terms of business success and in terms of at-the-table success) have used generic tools often enough to really weaken that "should." You still should do it, if you can, but don't sweat it too much, if that makes sense.

Design philosophy - What do you mean by this? I see your example, but I don't have that book to reference. Is it something like "this is the kind of game we want, that's why these rules are here and these other ones from the other game aren't"? Having a collection of rules that point towards a certain theme can certainly reinforce a feel or playstyle. "This is your Quantum score, the more you have the more super you are but the more mutated you may become", from Aberrant could be an example of this. There isn't anything in D&D really that has a kind of "push your luck" attribute.
Push your luck is more a down-stream expression of this than what I was thinking, in much the same way that "XP=GP" is downstream from the actual design philosophy which leads to that particular design choice. I'll use both Dungeon World and 1e D&D for examples. (There's a complete DW SRD online if you wish to look it up. It's pretty comprehensive.)

In 1e D&D, the design philosophy was informed by wargames. "Hit points" arose not from their alleged naturalness (despite the claims that hit points are meat points), but because in a wargame, a squad can take so many "hits" before it loses its combat effectiveness. Thus, the explicit rules component is "hit points," but the design philosophy behind it is "wargames do this and we will adapt it to suit." The philosophy comes first, the expression second.

It's more interesting to look at things like XP=GP and item/inventory things, because those actually show the distinctly early-edition/not-strictly-wargame side of things. XP=GP arises from the design philosophy goal of "combat should be harrowing, but the rewards equally rich." That guiding design focus is key to understanding why much of 1e is what it is. XP=GP reflects this design philosophy by saying that combat teaches you very little, but heisting teaches you a great deal. Players are rewarded for avoiding direct conflict (whether by diplomacy or skullduggery) by their higher survival rate, faster advancement, and greater treasure acquired. This also leads to the (for me revelatory) idea that heavy armor is a survival booster in exchange for an XP penalty. It weighs more. The more weight you personally carry, the less weight of treasure you can haul out of the dungeon, and thus the less advancement you make.

1e includes plenty of things like this: part of the rules, but never explained. It actually has a lot of very clever design, especially for being the first of its kind (though the organization is abysmally bad.) It's just either written by someone who thought all of this was painfully obvious and thus didn't need to be specified, or someone who thought that it shouldn't be specified so only "good" players would figure it out and get an edge. I genuinely don't know which.

Point being, 1e has several strong design philosophy commitments which are what drive its RAW content. "Combat is harrowing, but the rewards are sweet" is a PbtA-style Principle for 1e D&D play. Others include, "Challenge the player, not the character," "reward skill, not acting," "prevent complacency by breaking patterns," and "fight dirty and don't hold punches." These all have to be teased out of the text, because none of them are really written down in clear form. I'm sure at least one person will disagree with how I've phrased each of these, and possibly all of them, but they work overall. Agendas for 1e would be something like, "Portray a world of high risk and high reward," "Challenge your players to succeed," and "Decide what is, play to find out how your players respond."

By contrast, I can just quote the DW Agendas and Principles. (For clarity: "Agendas" are high-level abstractions, the lofty goals of play, not nitty-gritty details. Principles are your guidelines on how to achieve those goals, and thus tend to be much more specific and actionable.) The game is clear that goals not on this list aren't things you should put much effort into, and you definitely shouldn't let other things get in the way of these three goals. The Agendas of Dungeon World are:
  • Portray a fantastic world
  • Fill the characters’ lives with adventure
  • Play to find out what happens
The Principles are:
  • Draw maps, leave blanks
  • Address the characters, not the players
  • Embrace the fantastic
  • Make a move that follows
  • Never speak the name of your move
  • Give every monster life
  • Name every person
  • Ask questions and use the answers
  • Be a fan of the characters
  • Think dangerous
  • Begin and end with the fiction
  • Think offscreen, too
There may be more Principles of 1e that I have left out (as you can see, there are several for DW.) But I hope this gives you some idea of what "design philosophy" means as a way to distinguish one system/edition from another.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Such a sad world in which "play to find out what happens" is a radical and innovative idea basically unheard of in the mainstream.

I mean, some people would say it's a sad world where people keep inventing terms so that they can disparage the majority of their fellow gamers.

...and then wonder why their fellow gamers aren't all just like, "You're totally right! You called your games the cool games. I guess that means we play the uncool games. Thank you for edumacating me. I appreciate your insulting my games, and will look forward to stopping what I enjoy so that I may be further convinced by people that look down upon me and the things I do."
 

Oofta

Legend
I mean, some people would say it's a sad world where people keep inventing terms so that they can disparage the majority of their fellow gamers.

...and then wonder why their fellow gamers aren't all just like, "You're totally right! You called your games the cool games. I guess that means we play the uncool games. Thank you for edumacating me. I appreciate your insulting my games, and will look forward to stopping what I enjoy so that I may be further convinced by people that look down upon me and the things I do."
Yeah, when people use $5.00 words like Heteroglossia to discuss concepts it's annoying. ;)
 


EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
Such a sad world in which "play to find out what happens" is a radical and innovative idea basically unheard of in the mainstream.
I mean, putting people on rails, whether visible or invisible, has been a norm in D&D for ages. To the point that there are people who straight up don't believe it is possible to run an enjoyable D&D game without illusionism.

I mean, some people would say it's a sad world where people keep inventing terms so that they can disparage the majority of their fellow gamers.

...and then wonder why their fellow gamers aren't all just like, "You're totally right! You called your games the cool games. I guess that means we play the uncool games. Thank you for edumacating me. I appreciate your insulting my games, and will look forward to stopping what I enjoy so that I may be further convinced by people that look down upon me and the things I do."
Is that actually occurring here?
 

Yora

Legend
I mean, putting people on rails, whether visible or invisible, has been a norm in D&D for ages. To the point that there are people who straight up don't believe it is possible to run an enjoyable D&D game without illusionism.


Is that actually occurring here?
Dragonlance was the worst thing that ever happened to the RPG medium.
Everyone agrees it was awful, but still the masses wanted to copy it and make it work for the next four decades.
 

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
Yeah, we won't see eye to eye on this with respect to Stonetop's "flaws," because I think that you're reading of Stonetop's themes guide what you believe to be its flaws, and I don't see that as one of its major themes*, though it may be what you hoped to get out of the game.

* If it is, the theme is with respect to the Steading's community rather than the character loadout.

Edit: Sorry, but after re-reading a lot of pertinent areas of the playtest materials, I think that you are eisegeting the theme you wanted out of Stonetop into the texts rather than exegeting one of the major themes out of the texts. And I think that this colors your analysis and views of the game's flaws pretty significantly here.

This is not to say that there are not significant system differences between the two games.

Disagreements on theme aside if equipment load out is not intended to be an actual point of pressure why have a dedicated subsystem attached to it? Plenty of Powered by the Apocalypse games do not treat load out and inventory management as an important element of play so they don't include systems that support inventory management.
 

Aldarc

Legend
Disagreements on theme aside if equipment load out is not intended to be an actual point of pressure why have a dedicated subsystem attached to it? Plenty of Powered by the Apocalypse games do not treat load out and inventory management as an important element of play so they don't include systems that support inventory management.
Does every dedicated subsystem need to exist in a game simply to be an actual point of pressure or can subsystems serve other purposes (e.g., ease of use, etc.)?
 

Imaro

Legend
Such a sad world in which "play to find out what happens" is a radical and innovative idea basically unheard of in the mainstream.

Even more sad when people are made to feel as if their preferences somehow make the world a worse place.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top