D&D General Why the resistance to D&D being a game?

[Micah Sweet]

"It's not a doll! It's an action figure!" except here it is "It's not a game! It's a [insert preferred nomenclature here]!"

Way to belittle the preferences of others (if you're serious, of course).

 

[Alzrius]

I don’t get it.

Even if the game is about simulating a secondary fantasy world the PCs inhabit and they are on a hard-scrabble quest to survive from zeros to heroes, encumbrance and torchlight are of dire importance, etc…it’s still a game.

Even if the game is about sitting around with your friends, drinking some beers and eating some pretzels while killing some orcs…it’s still a game.

Even if the game is about epic quests and cosmic heroes tearing down gods…it’s still a game.

D&D is a game. So why do people object to it being treated like a game?

Because (as I see it) the main draw of a tabletop RPG is that it models a fantasy world beyond the constraints of what other games provide for. Jokes and memes aside, you can't actually rob the bank in Monopoly, nor can you bust out of jail. You can't perform an enhanced interrogation of Col. Mustard if you're playing Cluedo. Your pawn can't crown himself as a second king in a game of chess, etc.

The most fundamental aspect of D&D (again, for me) in terms of setting itself apart from other games is that it models a fantasy world where anything can be attempted. And in the course of modeling this fantasy world (even with the various editions having different answers as to what should be modeled and in what detail), the aspect of "it's an entire world" combined with "anything can be attempted" invites a level of immersion that's best abetted by understanding how things work from an in-character mindset, which is what the game rules are therefore in service to.

Having rules which therefore clash with, rather than abet, that sense of immersion in the world are, by that token, counterintuitive. While there always have been, and always will be, necessary compromises in that regard (hit points being a perennial example) due to the fact that "course of play" remains a viable concern, such compromises need to be justified as to whether or not they're worthwhile.

Obviously, opinions will (wildly) differ in that regard, but the same way that game-play remains a strong consideration, so does the immersive quality of the fantasy world. As the defining feature that sets tabletop role-playing games apart from other types of games (e.g. board games, video games, etc.), losing too much of that immersiveness means that you're losing the entire point of playing this kind of game, rather than one of those other types.

 

[Charlaquin]

Some games do, some games don't. Catch doesn't have a built-in objective beyond "catch the ball and throw it back,"

That is an objective though. Catch is a very simple game, and players often add additional complexity to make it more engaging, such as with more complex goals, such as “see how many times in a row you can catch the ball before dropping it,” and/or additional restrictions, such as “take a step back after each time you catch the ball.”

 

[Vaalingrade]

The same people then won't let there be any fantasy except for with spellcasters though.

 

[Composer99]

Do you have an example of a ttrpg that has accomplished this? I mean theoretically anything is possible until it's time to actually make it happen.

EDIT: To better clarify what I'm asking... is there an example of a ttrpg that is modularly designed to accommodate *through robust support) a multitude of playstyles?

I'm aware of only a tiny fraction of RPGs that exist, and I'm familiar with the rulesets of far fewer; as such I'm not personally aware of a non-D&D RPG whose design has deliberately set out to support multiple player constituencies. At the same time, the very fact of my unfamiliarity with the majority of RPGs means I would not assert, or accept as fact an assertion, that no such game exists.

That being said, we can clearly point to past editions of D&D for examples. For instance:

• Tome of Battle was clearly a "module" that was robustly designed within the parameters of the 3.X engine to provide an alternate experience of martial combat for a player constituency that WotC (a) realised was underserved by the core options in the PHB and (b) decided to support.
• The Epic Level Handbook (especially when taken together with Deities & Demigods) is clearly a "module" designed to support a player constituency that wanted amazingly gonzo mythic gameplay.
• 3.X psionics is clearly a "module".
• Supplements that introduced new ways of using magic, such as Incarnum (however badly it was designed) are clearly "modules", insofar as they were intended to appeal to player constituencies interested in alternatives to 3.X's classic Vancian spellcasting.
• Looking at them with "game" in mind, the myriad game settings of 2e are clearly "modules" that are intended to support different ways of playing the game that might appeal to different player constituencies, especially since they actually came with (often rather significant) alterations to the core ruleset; I'm also comfortable asserting that by the standards of D&D design at the time, these were "robust".
• The Basic/BX/BECMI lines versus AD&D 1e, although presented as separate product lines, are "modules" of D&D intended to appeal to different player constituencies.

We can also look at other games. World of Warcraft also has multiple player constituencies that it has to satisfy, some of whose preferences are at odds with each other - hardcore raiders versus hardcore PvPers versus solitaire world explorers versus casual guildies and so on. Because WoW is approached from the design side with a much more "gamist" mentality, it can do a better job of creating gameplay that can robustly satisfy the preferences of multiple player consitituencies, although I am sure even then compromises must be made. (Apropos of "even then", I am also sure that WoW discussion forums are also full of people who very strongly feel that their gameplay preferences are equivalent to "objective metrics of quality" and who are not particularly interested in the game's design taking other player constituencies into account.)

---

Edit to add: Not related to the above reply, but so as I'm not spamming the thread with replies, I'm going to a quote a post that gets to the heart of what I wrote earlier.

Fighters can have nice things. The problem is that most people want the fighter to be able to leap tall mushrooms in a single bound, move faster than a locomotive, and cut buildings in half with a single slice without it being supernaturally(magical) honed skill. They want to keep things that are clearly beyond the mundane as mundane, which doesn't work for a lot of us.

This is what I mean about how a lot of this comes across as being about exclusivity and ownership. Whatever Maxperson intended, this post comes across as arguing that it's not enough for the rules to accommodate authentically epic and mythic non-spellcasting heroes in a way that can be siloed off so those characters don't appear in Maxperson's games - it comes across as asserting that they're not allowed to exist in the game, period. And on what basis? Again, whatever was intended, it comes across as treating "doesn't work for a lot of us" as an "objective" metric of quality that the game must be made to adhere to.

 

[Reynard]

I don't think immersion is necessary or even particularly desirable all the time. You can still have the "anything can be attempted" ethos without having to inhabit the world or your character. It can still be a game and be "limitless."

 

[Ondath]

I don't think immersion is necessary or even particularly desirable all the time. You can still have the "anything can be attempted" ethos without having to inhabit the world or your character. It can still be a game and be "limitless."

You can, sure. But that's the specific aesthetic that I'm chasing when I'm playing TTRPGs, so it's important to me. I don't deny that other people might have different priorities when they play TTRPGs, but it's particularly grating when people essentially insinuate that those who chase any aesthetic beyond gamism are pretentious, or are ashamed of admitting that they play games.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm aware of only a tiny fraction of RPGs that exist, and I'm familiar with the rulesets of far fewer; as such I'm not personally aware of a non-D&D RPG whose design has deliberately set out to support multiple player constituencies.

I would tentatively nominate GURPS here, along with Amazing Engine.

 

[Reynard]

You can, sure. But that's the specific aesthetic that I'm chasing when I'm playing TTRPGs, so it's important to me. I don't deny that other people might have different priorities when they play TTRPGs, but it's particularly grating when people essentially insinuate that those who chase any aesthetic beyond gamism are pretentious, or are ashamed of admitting that they play games.

It don't think I have witnessed accusations of "pretention" since the 90s when AD&D players balked at WoD players.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It don't think I have witnessed accusations of "pretention" since the 90s when AD&D players balked at WoD players.

That's because they were the ones trying to gatekeep 'real roleplaying'. Now the 'real roleplaying' gatekeeping is coming from inside the house.