D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

Or if you prefer a food analogy: If you replace the cream with tomato puree, and the clams with sausage, and the potatoes with tortellini, and the Old Bay with salamoia bolognese, it's not clam chowder anymore, even if it has the right structure, because it has (effectively) none of the components. Likewise, a carafe of cream, a container of chicken broth, a pile of potatoes, a bowl of freshly shucked clams, and a container of Old Bay aren't clam chowder either. The former has lost all but the tiniest similarities to clam chowder, having only the most fundamental structure (soup). The latter has all the components, but components alone don't make clam chowder, the cooking does.
I think what @Lanefan is getting at, to continue the food analogy is the following.

The initial party consists of clams, pork, onion, and celery. Along the way pork retires and he adds in garlic. Then onion dies and he adds in potatoes. And so on. Pork and onions are still in there, since the soup(story) is the entire adventure. Clams wasn't replaced. A new ingredient was added. At the end of the adventure you wind up with some delicious Clam Chowder.

I'm not saying speaking against individual stories. I'm just saying that you can still get some really tasty soup without them.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It's funny how, even in the most intense OS vs new era debates, you rarely see strong defense of race/class restrictions and level limits. There doesn't seem to be as much calls for "elves shouldn't be bards!" And "dwarves should only reach 12 level max" as I see for a lot of other aspects of AD&D. Then again, I don't hang in OS communities, so maybe there is a hidden wellspring of support for halflings only being mid-level fighters and thieves.
That might be because even back in the 1980's a whole lot of people didn't play with those limits.
 

But a game isn't a story until it is over. RPGs generate stories by virtue of being played, but they aren't "A Story". Stories have beginnings, middles and ends. they have plots and characters, high and low points. None of that is true with RPGs except in retrospect. The story we tell about the game we just played IS the story, generated from the game. Treating an RPG like a "story" with important predestined plot points is a good way to ruin the "game" aspect and impinge on the most important element of RPG play: player agency. RPGs are games where we play to find out what happens.

(Just because the world is a weird place, I will go ahead and specifically say "all this in my opinion" as if it weren't obvious from the start.)
I don't agree with you about the story only showing up at the end of the RPG. The group can have the goal of saving the princess, but I can go to lunch with a friend and relate to him the story of how we encountered a rigid pig in the wilderness while we traveled, and that the pig turned out to be a confused mimic. When we eventually beat it, we found a wand of magic missiles.

That's a story, even if we aren't anywhere near completing the adventure.
 

I don't agree with you about the story only showing up at the end of the RPG. The group can have the goal of saving the princess, but I can go to lunch with a friend and relate to him the story of how we encountered a rigid pig in the wilderness while we traveled, and that the pig turned out to be a confused mimic. When we eventually beat it, we found a wand of magic missiles.

That's a story, even if we aren't anywhere near completing the adventure.
Fine. Sure. But you did not have a story about the pig incident until it was resolved, did you?
 

wait, what? is that a thing? that's psychotic. that can't be a thing. what?
I've had people here argue that to me multiple times, but the rules say that the PCs are members of their race and that the traits in the 5e PHB are racial traits, so if you look at it in context, their argument is incorrect. The 5e PHB very clearly says...

"RACIAL TRAITS
The description of each race includes racial traits that are common to members of that race. The following entries appear among the traits of most races"

Common to members of the race, not common to PCs or PC members of the race.
 


Fine. Sure. But you did not have a story about the pig incident until it was resolved, did you?
Sure. I could also tell a story about how we met a still pig that was a confused mimic. The story doesn't have more than that yet, but it's still a story I'm telling to my friend.

A story is just something you are relating to someone else about things that happened.
 



I have studied college-junior level math and gotten A or B grades. I have tutored math for people of all ages, professionally, for years. The most challenging tutees are always the adult learners building up their foundational math skills.

What more would you need for me to prove my credentials?
Please please please do not. Do not give that credibility.

We do this every time we discuss TSR-style (lower=better) AC. We do this every time we discuss ThAC0. We do this every time someone mentions tracking GURPS characters with a spreadsheet. We do this every time someone mentions Hero System character point costs (summing fractional values and then applying a ratio of those fractions to a total).

We get it, it is simple math under 100, and/or schoolchild age 9-11 math concepts like negative numbers or multiplying/dividing fractions and thus 'aren't hard.' It's the low-effort explanation for what is going on that just compares when root function task involved was learned and ignoring any and all other framing. An educator or psychologist (or someone who's managed self-described math-brilliant people for 20+ years) would I think have a more nuanced analysis. I've seen 40+ years of gamers go back and forth over optimal (/accessible) rules complexity. The ones that support the more-math-convoluted mechanics are not, consistently, the ones who are smarter/better at math (as noted, it is simple math under 100/grade school mechanisms). It is about attention, application in the moment, tracking of different moving pieces, and more than anything else, investment.

I, for one, have no problem with ThAC0 (and I have been relatively vocal about my TBI, and am not in the running for smartest person here). However, every time I use the 1e weapon vs. armor I have to look at the AC 2 column and go 'okay, Gary knew maces and picks and such were good vs. plate, and these get pluses, so it is a bonus to the attacker's roll' to determine where that number goes and in which direction. Why? Because my brain declines to internalize it (because it is 1e only and didn't even get used in 90% of the 1e games I've played).
Doing integrals in my head? I've done that. I'm too rusty to do it now, but I used to, e.g. back in my optics class. I can do some fiendishly difficult mathematics.
But keeping straight in my head that a +4 bonus to THAC0 from a magic weapon means my THAC0 goes from -3 to -7, and thus I can hit a target with AC of...what? Assuming I roll 10, with a THAC0 of -7, I can hit an AC of -7-10 = -17.
And every single time I have to do these mental gymnastics to get useful information out. Doubly so because, if I were actually playing at a real table, most GMs will NEVER tell you a monster's AC, so you're doing Die + [UNKNOWN] >= THAC0.
I think nearly every time, in the wild, I've always seen people verbalize framing along the lines of 'weapon/strength/specialization bonuses total +4, I rolled a 12 (totaling 16) and my ThAC0 is 18, I hit a (18-16) 2 AC.'

I used to hang out with a guy who was working on his PhD on English.

He made a distinction between "stories" and "narratives." A narrative is a set of events happening to people and/or characters presented in a medium. Me telling an anecdote, a novel, a history text, a ttrpg session, a movie, all of these are narratives.

A story has an arc - a beginning, a middle, and an end. There's a coherence to it. Most narratives one encounters will be stories (or at least attempted stories) but some really aren't - they're just accounts. A ttrpg session, or even a campaign, generally does not quite meet this definition of "story," though if the characters have motivations and try to pursue them, it's often really close.
An interesting division. By that framing, much of what I've opined about story would fall under narrative ('it's just what's happened in the game.'). I wonder if that's his distinction, or if there is some weight to that. Not really interested in a war of dictionary references, but it would be interesting to look further into the peer literature or the like.
Then there are storygames like most PbtA games that have procedures and rules designed to ensure an actual story happens.
Some of them do. But others just have 'narrative mechanics' like you can spend points to make one of the guards an old school chum. It is another thing that exists on a spectrum and people can tweak to match their preferences.
 

Remove ads

Top