D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Faolyn]

Define "better".

I will argue that Ironsworn is easier to use for a sandbox game. I will not argue that it's better. I will argue that it's easier because it requires a lot less work to get off the ground than something like D&D where you need a lot of work (whether it's you doing the work, or buying the work of other people) before you can start playing.

So, yeah, I'd say that Ironsworn is easier. Better? Nope.

You have consistently defined better, even if you claim you never meant it. See, you have three options here: Faster and easier = better; faster and easier = different but otherwise neutral; or faster and easier = worse.

I don't think you mean faster and easier is worse (example: buying fast food is faster and easier than cooking a meal, but is worse in terms of healthiness and usually quality and flavor). And if you meant that faster and easier is different, then, as I said, you'd shrug and move on. Each to their own, right?

So that leaves us with you thinking faster and easier is better. Which again, is a weird take. This isn't a job where efficiency is the most important thing. It's a hobby. It's group storytelling. It can even be seen as a form of art. If someone has the time and energy to put hours and hours of work into their hobby and enjoys doing so, then more power to them! Their setting is their art. It shouldn't matter to you if it takes them a few minutes or a few hours or a few years to create it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's about what the creative goals are. How a mechanic is used in a system is a result of why the mechanic is there in the first place. And that is to further the author's or group's creative goals. Specifically for X cards, they are there to help keep the group on the same page creatively, which is different when it comes to a narrative first campaign versus a sandbox campaign versus other types of campaigns.

There is a general idea behind X cards that makes the mechanics of interest to many authors and groups. Then they take that general idea and tailor it to fit their creative agenda.

How X cards can be abused is not relevant to my point. If it occurs, the group can take care of the issue by hashing it out among themselves, without needing a game author to tell them what to do.

The one and only function the X-card serves is to give an official signal, from one of the participants, that a particular topic or discussion would make them deeply uncomfortable, and thus they don't want to focus on it.

I fail to see how this has any intersection with what you describe other than being used to strangle the experience, which is, by definition, abuse of the tool. Perhaps an example, rather than just an abstract description, would help?

 

[The Firebird]

At this point I think Hussar has a narrowly defined and defensible point. I disagree with it in the sense that I don't think narrative games are sandboxes, but that's a difference of opinion...if one considers Ironsworn an acceptable sandbox it certainly is faster.

 

[VelvetViolet]

This is true for RPG players in general. I believe it's called "grognardism" or something?

Anytime you have a game receive new editions or spin-offs, then it will rear it's ugly head.

I remember back in the 2000s when I was getting into ttrpgs for the first time, I stumbled upon Vampire: The Requiem and thought it was cool (I was in my hot topic emo goth teen phase at the time). I was taken aback when a bunch of online people would cyberbully me and other fans just for liking it. As I discovered, it was an AU reboot of an earlier game called Vampire: The Masquerade. The fans of the older continuity were absolutely livid that their favorite game was canceled and took it out on fans of the new game. Soured my enjoyment really quickly.

I left around the 2010s due to real life stuff and didn't look back. When I heard that V5 pissed off the fans again, I laughed. I had absolutely zero sympathy after the mistreatment they gave me. Pity about Requiem tho. I liked the premise of different magical races coexisting secretly on modern Earth and joining various philosophical factions. I'm disappointed that no other games have picked up those ideas. I remember reading some Ordo Dracul fanfic from the 2000s describing a vampire learning their magic through a trial by fire and it was fascinating.

I find it so frustrating that people arbitrarily hate new ideas for being different. While I can be resistant to leaving my comfort zone sometimes, usually I'm willing to give new games a chance before losing interest. I'm definitely not gonna waltz into the forum for a game I don't like so that I can insult people I don't know. People who do that are jerks.

At the same time, I'm not gonna argue that new editions are universally improvements. Designers are human and they're gonna make mistakes. The 2nd edition of Requiem retconned all the miscellaneous cryptids and creepypastas from the 1st edition as being "angels" of the "god-machine", which was an attempt to copy Cthulhu mythos tropes or something but ended up being conceptually incoherent because they wanted the goals of the god to be mysterious (i.e. up to GM fiat) and suggested "making humans mine more uranium" as a possible explanation. I don't know what the writers were smoking, but I'd love to try it.

RPGs shouldn't be a zero-sum game. All these different ideas should be able to coexist. It's fiction! The problem is copyright. If a publisher decides to cancel your favorite game, then you can't just publish your own continuation and maintain your own fandom. They'd C&D you.

This isn't a problem for D&D because of the OGL and OSR. The medieval fantasy genre is oversaturated. Nobody is beholden to whatever WotC is cooking up. There are numerous other writers publishing their own takes on the genre. Why should it matter if tieflings are a core race in 5e? There are countless other clones you could play instead. If you're willing to convert statistics, then there's enough generic fantasy supplements to last for innumerable lifetimes. There are supplements with rules for playing giant intelligent spiders and intelligent floating swords, among other things. Your cup drowneth in a lake.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Reading your response to @Bedrockgames, I take the following points from your post:

• If something matters, it should have a rule.
• Referee technique shouldn't have to carry the burden of organizing the campaign.
• Good design encodes good practices into the system itself.

No. You have made the first point too strident. If it is essential to play, then yes, I think it should have rules. The rules for the stuff the system is specifically there to do/cause/make/be/etc. If a game is about travel, then travel should have rules. If a game is about player agency, there should be rules in place which preserve player agency. A game which merely involves player agency, but isn't strictly about it, does not need rules for that. Rules might still be helpful (far too many people think rules are this horrible icky problem to be expunged as much as possible) should probably be used, but there's no need for them to be.

I 100% fully agree with point 2. I consider that an egregious "burden" (to use your own word) placed on the GM (not necessarily "DM"). Naturally, there may be some things which simply, unavoidably have to be taken care of by the GM. Those places, we can't do anything about. But if, as you say, there is a "burden" which can be shouldered by the rules rather than by technique, I think it should be shouldered so, unless there is very compelling argument otherwise. (E.g. "allowing this one small bit of "relies purely on GM technique"

I also don't think point 3 is correct either. Good design encodes as much of good practice as it can, and provides as clear and productive advice as it possibly can. But some things can't be encoded so. That some things can't be does not in any way excuse us from doing so when we can (and, naturally, when it isn't an egregious harm to do so...but I find such things are nowhere near as harmful as some would like to believe.)

In short, you are making an argument for the primacy of system design.

I do think it is extremely important, and find the opposite argument ("system doesn't matter") both completely false and frustratingly counter-productive. I find that most people who think system is distinctly secondary do not generally think game design is a meaningful effort, and instead place what I call an "auteur" DM in control so that something positive will result.

I can't speak for @Bedrockgames, as he has his distinct take. But for me, while I disagree with the primacy of system, I apply a structured framework that integrates adjudication tools, referee coaching, and worldbuilding techniques to support sandbox campaigns. What many call "the system" is just one element of this overall method. Likewise, @Bedrockgames has developed his own structured methods, which overlap with mine in some ways and differ in others.

Okay, but this to me is like saying the engine of a car is "just one element" of the car. Sure; both legally and morally there should be more to the car than that. But let us not pretend that the engine isn't the primary concern when one is buying, repairing, or driving a vehicle. Brakes are extraordinarily important, and if they fail you at a critical juncture the consequences can be disastrous. But that doesn't mean the engine isn't still the single most important component of a car.

For example, some object to the idea of GM fiat. In my approach, human referees making judgment calls and creative decisions are absolutely crucial. However, I take issue with labeling this as "fiat" in the sense of arbitrary or whimsical decision-making. That is not how campaigns are with my approach. In my reply to @pemerton, I outlined the criteria I use for adjudicating character actions, and elsewhere I've explained how consequences are systematically developed and managed. @Bedrockgames likewise has structured solutions to these elements.

I consider your approach, then, to be semantic, claiming that things which functionally are rules are not rules because you didn't write them down as rules, you wrote them down as guidance which is implicitly opt-in, but functionally required.

I will refrain from any further statements on "GM fiat", because my experiences...differ. Rather a lot. Almost diametrically.

We could certainly debate the particulars, but at the end of the day, our respective approaches are fundamentally different from yours.

I'm happy to explain more about how these elements fit together if you're interested, but I think this clarifies the core difference between our perspectives.

It honestly doesn't.

 

[robertsconley]

(snip)
I consider your approach, then, to be semantic, claiming that things which functionally are rules are not rules because you didn't write them down as rules, you wrote them down as guidance which is implicitly opt-in, but functionally required.
(snip)

We've both clearly laid out our respective views at this point. If you have specific questions about how my approach works, I'm happy to answer them. Otherwise, the key differences are apparent to those reading this thread.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I do think it is extremely important, and find the opposite argument ("system doesn't matter") both completely false and frustratingly counter-productive. I find that most people who think system is distinctly secondary do not generally think game design is a meaningful effort, and instead place what I call an "auteur" DM in control so that something positive will result.


Okay, but this to me is like saying the engine of a car is "just one element" of the car. Sure; both legally and morally there should be more to the car than that. But let us not pretend that the engine isn't the primary concern when one is buying, repairing, or driving a vehicle. Brakes are extraordinarily important, and if they fail you at a critical juncture the consequences can be disastrous. But that doesn't mean the engine isn't still the single most important component of a car.

we are definitely getting lost in the analogy so my response doesn’t really connect to sandbox, but the engine is not my primary concern when buying a car. My primary concern is not dying in a car accident. An engine plays a role there but things like vehicle size, brakes, safety rating, crumple zones, roll over cages, etc are my major criteria. I drive a crappy V4 engine, when a V6 would be better (I am no car guy though so maybe I am mistaken). But the trade off for us was a more affordable and safer car. Obviously the engine failing is a catastrophic event but I would rather have engine failure than brake failure. My breaks failed on an old jeep once and the only reason we didn’t end up dead or in the hospital was because it had snowed and I was able to steer in a snow bank so it slowed us till we stopped

 

[mamba]

we are definitely getting lost in the analogy so my response doesn’t really connect to sandbox, but the engine is not my primary concern when buying a car.

it never was a concern at all for me, but then all car engines are nearly identical enough that the minor differences do not really matter. These days you can roughly distinguish between gas powered, EV, and a hybrid and that is all the detail you really need to care about. The same is not true for all TTRPG systems, the differences in each camp (traditional, PbtA, a mix like Dungeon World if you try to mirror this) are much larger

 

[dave2008]

I do think it is extremely important, and find the opposite argument ("system doesn't matter") both completely false and frustratingly counter-productive. I find that most people who think system is distinctly secondary do not generally think game design is a meaningful effort, and instead place what I call an "auteur" DM in control so that something positive will result.

I have a strange relationship to this issue. I play and DM like the system doesn't matter (we play 5e, like we played 4e, like we played 1e), BUT, I design my games like the system is the most important thing! I have very different mindsets as game designer compared to when I am a player/DM. Not sure what that means!

 

[robertsconley]

I have a strange relationship to this issue. I play and DM like the system doesn't matter (we play 5e, like we played 4e, like we played 1e), BUT, I design my games like the system is the most important thing! I have very different mindsets as game designer compared to when I am a player/DM. Not sure what that means!

Game mechanics can be a form of description as well. Effective at tersely describing how different elements work. A well-designed creature/character stat block is a good example of this. So that's not surprising to me, especially if you have a good sense of what you are trying to accomplish.

However I keep in mind that most folks are raised to think that you play games by their rules, otherwise you are cheating. As a result, game mechanics for RPG tend to be treated as commandments carved in stone. For me, this means anything involving discretion or creative choices I give as advice. And any procedures or aides (like random tables) associated with that advice are organized separately from the system.