D&D 5E [+] Explain RPG theory without using jargon

Aldarc said:

@Charlaquin, I hope you don't mind me circling back to my earlier question:

Because I think that this would also help getting a better sense of what you want out of a game.

Click to expand...

Aldarc said:

Does your preference lean towards PbtA with OSE trappings or OSE with PbtA trappings?

Click to expand...

Aldarc said:

I think that Forged in the Dark hack would also work. Steven Lumpkin (SilentOsiris) is working on Marches in the Dark (WiP), which tries to meld FitD with West Marches style campaigns.

Click to expand...

Aldarc said:

Edit: I would also add another obvious candidate - Ironsworn - which you could definitely run solo at first if you are having an issue with finding players. @innerdude can speak much more about the system than I can regarding overall procedures.

Click to expand...

Malmuria said:

All that makes a lot of sense. It suggests that incoherence is a problem to be solved. As you say, the problem can be solved by reconciling different modes of play into a cohesive game.

My two points would be

A) While I understand, I don’t think I agree with this framework. Or, at least, I’m unconvinced. I’m unconvinced that “incoherence” is that much of a problem, or that the problems and debates that arise in play are due to such incoherence, and specifically incoherence between G,N, and S, as opposed to some other typology (Robin Laws types of players, etc). I’m unconvinced that “incoherence” is purely a problem of design, and can be ‘designed away,’ as it were.

The concept of “drift,” as I understand it, is telling in this regard. It implies that a game or play agenda starts out in one camp (G,N, or S), and then “drifts” into another or into some no man’s land. And you can still have fun if your game has drifted but you’re not playing it by the rules but hey if you’re having fun etc etc. But it’s interesting to me that to actually get to a game that plays according to a “pure” single agenda takes a lot of work. It suggests to me that players are really comfortable with “drifted,” or “incoherent” play—that, rather than throwing up problems all over the place, fits how a lot of players think about ttrpgs (and problems come from other sources). Granted, that might just be due to how ttrpgs developed historically and the fact that most people start with dnd.

B) If we are trying to describe a game “intentful, skillful design,” the term “incoherence” is incredibly infelicitous. It connotes the opposite of all of that. It’s a real problem with using the terminology if a term that ordinarily suggests disorganization, disjointedness, and lack of clarity is the same term that can be applied to “intentful , skillful design.”

This is something I don’t know: does the Forge or Forge-descended design provide advice on how to design games that sit in between two agendas? Like, someone who says, here’s how you design a game that is half narrativist, and half simulationist, because that’s a totally valid and great design goal. Or, here’s how you design a game with both story-now and story-before elements.

Note: almost all of what I’ve written above assumes that G, N, and S are indeed valid ways to class game design and play preferences, and as I’ve stated before, I don’t know that I would assume that. But, per this conversation, those are the terms on offer.

Click to expand...

Manbearcat said:

Apologies, but no time to fully digest this and respond. I’ll try to later.

When I say “reconcile” I mean “cause to exist in harmony.” Check out my most recent post on Torchbearer and how it willingly embraces incoherency and uses it intentfully, reconciling it in a unique way to facilitate the play it’s going for.

5e is like TB. It’s got competing play priorities, it embraces that, it just has a different reason for it to exist as a feature of play + it’s approach to reconciling it is different than TB. That collection of thoughts/juxtaposition might pique your interest (or not). Regardless, I’ll digest your post in full later and respond.

Click to expand...

hawkeyefan said:

One of the things I find a bit sad is how much OSR and narrative game fans tend to clash. Both types of games are largely trying to resolve the same issues they find with the modern versions of D&D and other games.

They do go about addressing those issues in different ways, so of course the games play differently. But they have their roots in the same dissatisfaction with mainstream games.

Click to expand...

Charlaquin said:

Yup, absolutely. But, again, to me those motivations are ultimately in service to a desire to learn what the character would do, which I keep hearing is simulationism. I seem to want simulationism by way of gamism.

Click to expand...

Charlaquin said:

Oh! Sorry, I missed your earlier post.

Click to expand...

Charlaquin said:

I mean, it’s hard to say as I don’t have much experience with either.

Click to expand...

Charlaquin said:

I can tell you what I’m envisioning is a system using Dungeon World’s core mechanic of rolling 2d6 + a modifier of up to +3 (which conveniently coincides with B/X’s relationship between ability scores and modifiers), with mixed success on a 6-9 and total success on a 10+, but tweaked to be used for “task resolution” rather than “consequence resolution.” I look at Dungeon World’s Act Under Pressure move and I see something very close to how I approach calling for checks in 5e. I can easily see massaging it to something like…

Ability Check
When you want to accomplish a goal, describe what you want to do and how you try to do it. The GM might describe a potential consequence for failure and ask you to roll…

• +Str if you use direct physical force
• +Dex if you use agility or fine manipulation
• +Con if you use resilience and fortitude
• +Int if you use memory or deductive reasoning
• +Wis if you use your senses of perception or intuition
• +Cha if you use charm and social grace

On a 7 or higher you accomplish what you were trying to do. If you get under a 10 you suffer the consequence the GM described.

That could then be the basic format other Moves follow. Attack someone in melee? Roll + Str, deal damage on a 7+ but <10 they take +1 Forward to attack you back. Shoot an arrow at someone? Roll +Dex, deal damage on a 7+ but <10 the arrow is lost or damaged beyond repair, mark off 1 ammo. Try to recall lore? Roll +Int, on a 7+ you remember something interesting but <10 it might not be directly relevant. Etc.

From B/X I’d want the dungeon exploration procedures, basically as-is. The tracking of time and resources, rolling for random encounters, just generally all that “Gamist” scorekeeping stuff.

For characters, I’d want something like the Dungeon Workd playbooks, picking a new Class Move from among a couple options when you level up. But I might use the level 10 capstone to lead into that B/X style domain building endgame. You know, hit the level cap and start attracting followers, which then expand your stable of characters and gives you options to choose from to start taking into dungeons now that the previous character has moved on to running their stronghold or whatever.

Click to expand...

Spoiler

Charlaquin said:

That sounds absolutely amazing to me. I’ve heard a few off-hand mentions of Torchbearer and they have always sounded intriguing to me, but I’ve never gone and checked it out; this may be the thing that convinces me to do so. Sadly, I very much doubt the people I play with would be into it, as all but one of them struggle a lot with the crunchy stuff. But this sounds like my dream game to participate in as a player.

Click to expand...

Arilyn said:

A lot of the newer OSR material is also not even that dissimilar to narrative games. There is becoming more and more of an overlap, as both styles wrestle with game creation and philosophy. I'm thinking Troika, Torchbearer, Spire (and Heart). These games seem to be appreciated by both the OSR and narrativist bases. There's been a shift in the OSR scene from recapturing the rulesets from the late 70s/80s to a more philosophical/experimental bent that has a much stronger "indie" feel.

Click to expand...

Aldarc said:

Does your preference lean towards PbtA with OSE trappings or OSE with PbtA trappings?

I think that Forged in the Dark hack would also work. Steven Lumpkin (SilentOsiris) is working on Marches in the Dark (WiP), which tries to meld FitD with West Marches style campaigns.

Edit: I would also add another obvious candidate - Ironsworn - which you could definitely run solo at first if you are having an issue with finding players. @innerdude can speak much more about the system than I can regarding overall procedures.

Click to expand...