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

[CleverNickName]

In my experience, players who want D&D to be something other than a game desperately want it to be art — and specifically storytelling or performance art. Games are low-class; art is high-class. It's a metanarrative born from pretentiousness.

Dang, Jack. Just @ me next time, why don't ya?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Because they want to have their cake and eat it too--and they don't care if doing so means someone else can't have cake at all.

They do, in fact, want a game. That's why you see folks instantly go for the proverbial torches-and-pitchforks when you make such heretical statements as "death is a bad motivator." Soon as you say that, suddenly purely gamist concepts like "stakes" get trotted out and defended as though the game nature of D&D were utterly essential and inviolable.

The problem is, they only want game on their terms. Terms that are often hella capricious and even moving with time. Any game which intrudes in the wrong ways on some other part of the experience is absolute anathema, to be destroyed on sight with immense prejudice. And anyone who would prefer to have gameplay that's...y'know...actually engaging and worthwhile as gameplay? Hard cheese on them. Go play your Xbox; your kind isn't wanted here.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm clearly doing a bad job of explaining myself. I'm not advocating for centering the game mechanics over everything else. I'm wondering why the design has to be so sloppy and produce pointlessly lame gameplay. Like...everything that's not combat in 5E. Most things are one-and-done. Make one roll and that's it. Either it's solved or it's not. And the only real option is to keep rolling until you succeed or walk away. That's lame. And yet that's how the game's designed. Make exploration into a fun part of gameplay, make it a mini game that's actually fun and engaging. But make it optional so tables can engage with it or ignore it as their preferences dictate. Same with social interaction. The minigame of social interaction is anemic at best. So make that into a fun and robust minigame. But one that tables can opt into or out of depending on their preferences. And even combat suffers because most combats are either a pointless cakewalk that's utterly boring or they're a slog with bags of boring hit points.

The answer to your questions I think is because D&D is not meant to be a series of mini-games.

The Combat system is absolutely a mini-game. And one, like you mention, can be taken out of the core of Dungeons & Dragons and be a thing in and of itself. We have plenty of board games that are just D&D combat with all the roleplaying stripped out. But how many people consistently play those board games instead of D&D? I would venture a guess and say very few. I do not believe Dungeon Command or Wrath of Ashardalon, or Legend of Drizzt were all that successful, and indeed (based upon what seems to be their entire lack of mention in the greater gaming culture) are not played right now much at all.

So if people are not interested in D&D Combat in and of itself as a mini-game... why would WotC (or indeed anyone) want to design more mini-games for Exploration and Interaction? What would be the point? Sure, there might be a few players who would want to gamify every single aspect of D&D and turn it into one giant board game, going from ruleset to ruleset to ruleset through the different game facets... but I do not personally believe that's what most players want. And thus I don't see why WotC would write up rulesets for them. That is most definitely a DMs Guild / 3PP thing to be done-- a small niche product for a very small subset of D&D players.

And as far as your claim that a one-and-done roll of the die is lame... for a lot of us it's the entire reason for playing. Because the important part of the Exploration or the Interaction for a lot of us (and I'm willing to bet the people in charge of designing D&D) is the individual players talking to one another and the Dungeon Master, and make verbal plans, and verbal offers, and verbal ideas of what exactly we want to do, and then receive a verbal response as to what occurs. And while I personally believe in the role of the DM to be able to just decide arbitrarily on occasion "Yeah, that works!" or "No, you can't do that" (based upon simple logic of a situation)... instead of that arbitrary choice of the DM, we substitute a die roll instead. Because it is the easiest way to move forward in the verbal communication that is roleplaying.

Like it or not... roleplaying games are about players coming up with ideas, and then seeing how those ideas play out. And the dice are merely there to arbitrate those results. They are a means to an end, they are not meant to be the end itself. And while any of us could play the dice game as an end to itself when it comes to Combat (like mentioned in those games above)... I see few people clamoring for the same thing in Exploration and Interaction.

If someone actually wants it? Great! Design it yourself or try and find someone who will design it for you. But just because you want it doesn't mean WotC or anyone else is under obligation to design it for you.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And that's basically Skilled Play where we basically say 'screw you' to people who don't personally want to speechify but want to play charismatic characters, or who don't watch 1000 hours of Bear Grills and just know what local flora pairs well with their own pee.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If it doesn't handle elements it's supposed to well, that's bad design. What is D&D's "intended purpose"?

The crux of the problem. Many of the people who don't want D&D to be a game (or, rather, they want "rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty game") either do not have an answer to that question, have an answer that breaks down heavily on analysis, or do have an answer....that openly disagrees with both the official description, and much actual in-practice play, of D&D.

Hence why, instead of going for the rather more philosophical categorizations of games, my proposed "game-(design-)purposes" classification

Like it or not... roleplaying games are about players coming up with ideas, and then seeing how those ideas play out. And the dice are merely there to arbitrate those results. They are a means to an end, they are not meant to be the end itself.

Your first sentence here is fine; this is a rather loose description of basically all open-ended games. Your second sentence is on shakier ground, for a variety of reasons (frex, dice do not arbitrate, which requires choosing a resolution between parties; instead, dice resolve without any consideration to any party.) Your last sentence is completely missing the point.

Let's say there are two routes to a destination. Perhaps a hike. One of those routes is enjoyable to traverse in and of itself. You pass by some cool stuff along the way, there's a cozy little food shack halfway up, there's a good mix of sun and shade, the slope is gentle, etc. The other route is perilous, difficult, offers no good views, puts you through the baking sun the whole way, etc. The only saving grace of the second route is that it takes half the time to hike as the previous, assuming you don't pause for a break or the like. Your reason for taking either hike is because there is a lovely waterfall at the far end, and you would like to see that waterfall. Which route do you take?

By your claimed standard here, we should universally favor the second route. The route is merely a means to an end, so spending the least amount of time possible on that means is always preferable. It doesn't matter that it would be an unequivocally more enjoyable experience to take the first route; we wish to be at the waterfall, hence the waterfall is all that matters, hence bothering with a pleasant route to get there is a waste.

Now, of course, most real-world examples of design things are going to be much more complex and far less black-and-white. My point is simply to show that "that's just a means to an end, so there's no point bothering to make those means better" is simply incorrect. Having better means to get to that end is often just as important as actually reaching the end. In some cases, the journey may even outweigh the destination; does it matter that you executed a cool idea if the whole time doing so you were literally just rolling d20s until you crit?

I see few people clamoring for the same thing in Exploration and Interaction.

Odd. I've seen exactly the opposite. Plenty of people on this forum alone would love to see better, more interesting stuff in this regard. And it isn't just folks who like "modern" RPG rules as opposed to "old school" ones. Spells that screw up the ability to run a difficult survival challenge (where food and water are scarce and the party must carefully manage their resources) are lamented all the time by folks who would like an exploration experience with mechanical teeth to it.

 

[mamba]

Right. But, to me at least, immersion is far more about presentation than tactical infinity. If I don't have tactical infinity, I can still be immersed in a game, see video games. If I don't have a good presentation, I cannot be immersed in a game, see literally all tabletop RPGs. Mostly because they literally can't offer the presentation of video games. Even the absolute best GMs I've seen, Matt Mercer, Brennan Lee Mulligan, etc, do not immerse me in their stories. It's always a person on the other side of the screen describing things, no matter how flowery or awesome.

I don't think we are far apart here. I agree that CRPGs are more easily immersive and probably also more deeply than traditional TTRPGs. I can immerse myself in a book too however, so it is not impossible for TTRPGs, it is 'just' harder. Props, terrain / battlemaps, music, etc. can all help with that too.

What takes me out of the immersion differs between the two though. In CRPGs I can run into the borders of the map, the limitations of the game engine, etc. In TTRPGs this is much easier, there the difficulty is more for the experience to be (as) immersive to begin with. For me it will be interesting to see how far VTTs will close the gap to CRPGs in the next years.

Exactly. And that's the problem. D&D tries to be all things to all gamers and therefore doesn't do anything particularly well.

agreed, but that is by design. If you want to hover in the center of things, you have to let go of the edges. Any 'edge' you cling to is pushing other people away from the game. You basically have to design for the flavorless vanilla experience, because any flavor will be something that some people like and some do not. Your problem starts when too many people feel your offering is too bland, but so far this does not seem to be the case for D&D, when looking at the number of players.

I am ok with people dropping the game again and moving to a more flavorful TTRPG, in whichever direction that takes them. If WotC is not, then they are the ones that need to address that (if the playtest is anything to go by, they are not doing that....)

It's being pulled in a dozen different directions trying to serve a dozen different design goals. Even older editions of D&D do different parts of the game better than 5E does.

no disagreement here either, which shows that it sits dead center, otherwise all the pulling would come from one side

But, 5E is effectively the only game in town. Other games literally exist, but they might as well not considering how difficult it is to find players, GMs, etc. So D&D has all the players and playstyles under one big tent and they do not all fit together. Yet here we are.

That is a problem, I wish people would be more interested in trying different things. The only solution to this would be a more modular design where you can replace one rules-module with a different one that better fits your needs, but I am not seeing WotC doing this any better now than they have in the past, so it is up to the DM to houserule or for the whole group to jump ship

 

[Ondath]

But they're really not. Humans will create a narrative from literally anything. A random sequence of utterly unconnected events happens to you throughout the day and yet, by the end of the day, you will have formed a narrative about your day in your head that connects them all and gives meaning to meaningless events. That same process is at play here. That's where the story comes from in RPGs. The mechanics themselves don't produce story. Even dedicated storygames, which D&D is explicitly not, still don't produce coherent stories unless the participants mangle and distort the game events into something vaguely resembling a story.

Oh man, I'm writing a philosophy PhD thesis on narratives and you're wrong. Not every sequence of events automatically makes a narrative. A narrative is a narrative because there are meaningful connections - in terms of agency, explanatory power, and so on. So no, you're wrong in saying that the mechanics don't produce the story. In simulationist games, the rules are literally there to create a sequence of events that are meaningfully connected (and since they also simulate high-intensity situations where victory and defeat are on the line, that meaning is also emotionally charged), and that meaningful connection is what makes a game's narrative different from the story of a boardgame or a League of Legends match. Not to mention the fact that you are completely overlooking immersion as a factor, and that is a (pardon the pun) gamechanger since it completely changes how you relate to the story that arises out of the game (consuming it vs. actively living it).

 

[DEFCON 1]

Let's say there are two routes to a destination. Perhaps a hike. One of those routes is enjoyable to traverse in and of itself. You pass by some cool stuff along the way, there's a cozy little food shack halfway up, there's a good mix of sun and shade, the slope is gentle, etc. The other route is perilous, difficult, offers no good views, puts you through the baking sun the whole way, etc. The only saving grace of the second route is that it takes half the time to hike as the previous, assuming you don't pause for a break or the like. Your reason for taking either hike is because there is a lovely waterfall at the far end, and you would like to see that waterfall. Which route do you take?

By your claimed standard here, we should universally favor the second route. The route is merely a means to an end, so spending the least amount of time possible on that means is always preferable. It doesn't matter that it would be an unequivocally more enjoyable experience to take the first route; we wish to be at the waterfall, hence the waterfall is all that matters, hence bothering with a pleasant route to get there is a waste.

Why are we going to the waterfall? Why is going to the waterfall important? Give me the reason why getting to the waterfall quicker is the important thing to do, and that will be our answer as to why the end is important.

Does it matter how fast we get there? If it doesn't, then of course the longer but prettier route would be preferable. But if time does matter, then we would make the judgement prior to leaving on whether we think the dangerous-but-quicker route offers the best chance of successfully achieving our goal.

In other words... we come up with an idea to solve a problem we have. We make a decision on the best way to achieve it, and we execute that idea as best we can. And part of that decision-making process (bringing it back to D&D) is us deciding what our odds of success are based upon the dice we are going to roll. We are not rolling the die just for the sake of rolling a die... we are rolling a die to give us the answer of whether we were successful in achieving our goal using the idea we came up with.

The die isn't the answer. The die merely gives us our answer.

 

[dave2008]

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?

What resistance are you talking about. This is not, I think, something I have encountered before.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why are we going to the waterfall? Why is going to the waterfall important? Give me the reason why getting to the waterfall quicker is the important thing to do, and that will be our answer as to why the end is important.

Does it matter how fast we get there? If it doesn't, then of course the longer but prettier route would be preferable. But if time does matter, then we would make the judgement prior to leaving on whether we think the dangerous-but-quicker route offers the best chance of successfully achieving our goal.

In other words... we come up with an idea to solve a problem we have. We make a decision on the best way to achieve it, and we execute that idea as best we can. And part of that decision-making process (bringing it back to D&D) is us deciding what our odds of success are based upon the dice we are going to roll. We are not rolling the die just for the sake of rolling a die... we are rolling a die to give us the answer of whether we were successful in achieving our goal using the idea we came up with.

The die isn't the answer. The die merely gives us our answer.

The point was to show that you cannot just reason from "it's faster" to "it's better."

Obviously it is a judgment call. That's the point! The whole point is that this requires careful thought and consideration.

But, all else being equal, if you have a choice between using a method that is enjoyable in and of itself, and a method that is not at all enjoyable in and of itself, the former is clearly preferable unless you explain why it would be bad. Hence, the centerpiece of your reasoning--that, because it is merely a means and not an end, it is irrelevant whether it is good or bad--is simply, unequivocally false.

"It's the means, not the end" doesn't change anything about the discussion. The means, insofar as they support the end, should be good ones. They should be worthwhile in themselves, if possible. We should only be willing to endure poor means if it would be a greater sacrifice to get something else. That, pretty clearly, means that the onus is on the person alleging that we should accept uninteresting means in order to get to interesting ends, not on the person who says that, when possible, we should make the means be pretty cool all by themselves.