A Question Of Agency?

[Aldarc]

Speaking as someone who runs a fair number of games I also do not think the GM is special in this regard.

The problem is that a lot of forum discussion and even fan content creation (e.g., YouTube, blogs, etc.) are created by GMs who want to feel special and insist that they are.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The problem is that a lot of forum discussion and even fan content creation (e.g., YouTube, blogs, etc.) are created by GMs who want to feel special and insist that they are.

Why is that a problem? I mean, I have learned zip from videos. I don't even care about them, and 99% of players have never watched one (probably don't know they exist). Likewise they don't pay attention to blogs or message boards. Even most GMs don't do those things, they read the rules (maybe) and run the game.

And this is why IMHO a game needs, or is improved by at least, strong explicit principles and agendas which the GM can rely on to work with the provided mechanics and process. If a GM then wants to 'get creative' they can do so in the realm of fiction. Or even in terms of content. Of course if they feel confident enough they can create their own games, but that gets into at least true homebrew. Even there strong principles is only good.

 

[nevin]

I don't think most forum content is created by GM's who think thier special. I think most creative people want to talk to other creative people and expand thier creativity. Thier are plenty of people who've never made a thing or ever run a game that come to these forums and try to have an argument, and they won't be happy till they have it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, OK, you could devise "some other form of D&D" where you telegraph risk/reward in a different way. However, IF YOU DON'T CODIFY THAT, then you run a serious risk of failing to communicate that to other people who play your game. In the case of classic D&D it was codified in the encounter tables (organized by level) and the outdoor encounter tables (organized by terrain type and expected to be customized by 'region' by the DM). This was also tied into the wandering monster mechanic, etc. So it was fairly deeply ingrained in the rest of the process of the game. If you remove it, you better make it very clear to the GM that there still need to be tie-ins between how wandering monsters work and 'risk/reward', however that is determined.

If you are just making up your own stuff, then this is all pretty much up to the DM. Instead of 'dungeon level' there are just maybe different 'named dungeons' (which if you think about it is actually kind of how modules work). But if you're actually writing a game, you have to do this work up front. If you don't, people's games won't work!

Do you really think that majority of people who played basic D&D consistently used those charts? Because I seriously doubt it. You seem to be fixated on one very specific goal of play and very specific way of achieving that goal.

The same is true for playing "romance" instead of D&D. The 'rules' for that game are going to be VERY different! Sure, you can pound the square peg of D&D rules into the round hole of a romance story and simply get 'something'. If it is just some one-shot thing your doing for yourself, that MIGHT work, though you probably will have to make up additional rules that don't exist in D&D.
If you were publishing such a game, it would be senseless to make it based on D&D however. D&D isn't going to provide you with any of the needed structure which you have to convey to another person who is going to run the game!

I think D&D has pretty much ideal amount of rules for romance. But sure, if you want to sell a romance RPG then you probably want to write some bespoke rules and convince the potential customers that they actually need your product.

Here's another example of a set of principles embodied into a game system: 4th edition D&D has 'role' and 'power source' as explicit attributes of each class. These embody, in a formalized structure, the niche and theme of a given class. This WORKS. 3.x is FILLED with 'trash classes' that barely work (if at all) and are grossly different from each other in terms of utility, power level, etc. such that many are essentially useless. EVERY SINGLE 4E CLASS WORKS. That is ENTIRELY because the role and power source define for the designers how something should work (A/E/D/U then provided further structure to keep it on track as it levels up). In fact, the very classes which were considered 'poor designs' are the very ones where the designers tried to skirt/subvert those attributes! Even THOSE classes still work (OK Binders are pretty worthless in the sense of being needed thematically, and they're weaker than they should be, but not by enough to be unplayable by any means). 3.5 has entire core classes that are drastically shortchanged (FIGHTERS, you can't get more core than that).

Whether 4e classes 'work' depends entirely on what you want D&D classes to do. 'Fulfil an artificial gamist role' is not high on my list.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Do you really think that majority of people who played basic D&D consistently used those charts? Because I seriously doubt it. You seem to be fixated on one very specific goal of play and very specific way of achieving that goal.

Yes, I do believe they use those charts. In all my days of playing those games we always used those charts, or else developed specific charts which accomplished the same thing. Wandering monsters are a KEY component of classic D&D play. Now, I admit we were less likely to use 'town' encounter charts, although we did use them in cases where the PCs were essentially 'wandering around looking for trouble' or otherwise engaged in something 'dungeon like'.

The problem with not using wandering monsters is, it actually causes a lot of issues for classic play. The PCs can simply loiter around all they want and thus it is easy to do things like heal and reacquire spells without even leaving the dungeon. This is exactly what these mechanics were meant to do is include these tactics in the risk/reward cycle.

I mean, maybe you created some alternative, that's fine, but the point still stands. In any case, my greater point was that the principle of "explicit risk/reward" is an unwritten, but clearly extant, principle of classic D&D.

I think D&D has pretty much ideal amount of rules for romance. But sure, if you want to sell a romance RPG then you probably want to write some bespoke rules and convince the potential customers that they actually need your product.

OK, and how would you use the D&D rules for that? The only parts I can see being of much use is INT will let you read/write/speak different languages, potentially (there are no rules in classic D&D for which ones you have learned however, beyond certain starting choices). Beyond that CHA obviously has some uses. You can use the reaction tables to see if your 'date' decides to stab you with a salad fork or snuggle! haha. Maybe you could make ability checks for other things, STR to impress them with your mighty thews, CON we'll skip my thoughts on that, DEX? WIS, maybe you can make a WIS check to know better than to date half-orcs? Honestly, there isn't a rule in D&D that is really going to help you. You can CALL it 'D&D' if you want, but it is going to be all just made up at the table, or cribbed from some other game. Beyond that you will have to create a process of play, procedures, etc. that work for this type of game.

Whether 4e classes 'work' depends entirely on what you want D&D classes to do. 'Fulfil an artificial gamist role' is not high on my list.

Yeah, nice. I'm thinking this thread is getting a little long in the tooth perhaps at this point. The quality of discourse seems to be going down...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, I do believe they use those charts. In all my days of playing those games we always used those charts, or else developed specific charts which accomplished the same thing. Wandering monsters are a KEY component of classic D&D play. Now, I admit we were less likely to use 'town' encounter charts, although we did use them in cases where the PCs were essentially 'wandering around looking for trouble' or otherwise engaged in something 'dungeon like'.

The problem with not using wandering monsters is, it actually causes a lot of issues for classic play. The PCs can simply loiter around all they want and thus it is easy to do things like heal and reacquire spells without even leaving the dungeon. This is exactly what these mechanics were meant to do is include these tactics in the risk/reward cycle.

I mean, maybe you created some alternative, that's fine, but the point still stands. In any case, my greater point was that the principle of "explicit risk/reward" is an unwritten, but clearly extant, principle of classic D&D.

I'm sure you did that. Nothing says 'fun' like a big stack of charts after all! A lot of other people didn't play like that though, and they did just fine. Like your approach is perfectly valid if one cares about optimal 'dungeon solving' experience or something like that, but that's just one approach.

OK, and how would you use the D&D rules for that? The only parts I can see being of much use is INT will let you read/write/speak different languages, potentially (there are no rules in classic D&D for which ones you have learned however, beyond certain starting choices). Beyond that CHA obviously has some uses. You can use the reaction tables to see if your 'date' decides to stab you with a salad fork or snuggle! haha. Maybe you could make ability checks for other things, STR to impress them with your mighty thews, CON we'll skip my thoughts on that, DEX? WIS, maybe you can make a WIS check to know better than to date half-orcs? Honestly, there isn't a rule in D&D that is really going to help you. You can CALL it 'D&D' if you want, but it is going to be all just made up at the table, or cribbed from some other game. Beyond that you will have to create a process of play, procedures, etc. that work for this type of game.

Point being that it is not a thing that requires rules and I would feel that any extensive rules would most likely be a detriment. Now if you feel differently and would like to have more rigid mechanical structure to support the play, then that's fine too, but I wouldn't want to play in such a game.

Yeah, nice. I'm thinking this thread is getting a little long in the tooth perhaps at this point. The quality of discourse seems to be going down...

If you think so. But the thing you keep missing is that whether some practice, rule or whatever is 'good' depends entirely on what you're actually trying to achieve with it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm sure you did that. Nothing says 'fun' like a big stack of charts after all! A lot of other people didn't play like that though, and they did just fine. Like your approach is perfectly valid if one cares about optimal 'dungeon solving' experience or something like that, but that's just one approach.

Not sure what you mean by 'big stack', they're a few pages in the back of the DMG, etc. Never found it onerous. I would also point out that the common complaints about things like '5 minute work days' and such were persistent, and were mostly issues when people ignored this part of the game. So "it worked anyway" is a bit subjective, at best... (and see below, all of this is beside the point).

Point being that it is not a thing that requires rules and I would feel that any extensive rules would most likely be a detriment. Now if you feel differently and would like to have more rigid mechanical structure to support the play, then that's fine too, but I wouldn't want to play in such a game.

Well, there are such games, its a whole genre, though not one that is super interesting to me to play.

If you think so. But the thing you keep missing is that whether some practice, rule or whatever is 'good' depends entirely on what you're actually trying to achieve with it.

That goes without saying, lol. I am giving examples of principles which benefit specific games, and you're busy trying to tell me they are meaningless for some other game. YEAH! No DUH! Do you really believe that I think every game must have a random monster chart? LOL. Anyway, more seriously, principles, just like rules and processes, are all specific to your goals. Every RPG has these, along with theme, genre, etc.

 

[chaochou]

Point being that it is not a thing that requires rules...

Point being that in order to be a game it does.

Otherwise D&D does romance about as effectively as Trivial Pursuit does air to air combat.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Point being that in order to be game it does.

Otherwise D&D does romance about as effectively as Trivial Pursuit does air to air combat.

This is like saying that if you don't have bespoke fear and sanity mechanics you can't play horror in D&D or if you don't have a hilarity score you can't play comedy with it. Now I don't know if anyone has successfully done air combat with Trivial Pursuit, perhaps someone has but it is not common. Playing romance in D&D however is pretty damn common.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is like saying that if you don't have bespoke fear and sanity mechanics you can't play horror in D&D or if you don't have a hilarity score you can't play comedy with it. Now I don't know if anyone has successfully done air combat with Trivial Pursuit, perhaps someone has but it is not common. Playing romance in D&D however is pretty damn common.

I feel like you may be missing the point about rules; they're what gives everyone the common ground of the game. This works like this, and that works like that. With these in place, participants can reasonably understand their chances for success and so on. They can then make informed decisions about what they'd like to try.

If the game boils down to a player declaring an action for their PC, and then the actual procedure is for the GM to decide if that works or not, then how does a player know their chances? How can they make informed decisions?

Removing the encounter tables from old versions of D&D removed a module of the game around which other modules were designed. They no longer functioned the same as they were intended. Now, I will admit that my group and I often did this in favor of a more cinematic approach to play......but that did render dungeon delving far different than it had been intended to be.

Now, if you have a GM who is consistent, and makes principled calls of some sort, and you also have players who understand this, the kind of play you're describing may be perfectly fine. But I don't think that means that rules aren't beneficial.