Game vs Game System

[pemerton]

Okay, then why does Simon list a bunch of individual arguments that don't add up to one whole?

He doesn't list individual arguments. He lists features of D&D gameplay (in all editions that I'm familiar with) that, taken together, locate D&D in a certain genre (and thus render it non-generic, and premise-inspired).

Failure to facilitate one thing does not necessitate the existence of another. That's a common logical fallacy.

I don't understand what you think the fallacy is. Perhaps you could refer me to a standard logic text (I've got Russell, Carnap, Quine, Susan L Stebbing, Copi and Nagel on my shelf ready to hand, and I'm sure the library carries more recent textbooks).

But anyway, I'll have another go. Failure to facilitate a certain sort of play does necessitate that the game facilitates only a limited range of sorts of play. If that limit becomes sufficiently narrow, then we can locate the facilitated play within a certain genre, or as inspired by an (implicit) premise. I (and I think Simon also) am asserting that this is true of D&D.

That is, if D&D fails to do grim and gritty this alone does not mean that it has a unifying thematic premise of. . . er. . . not grim and gritty

Well, not grim & gritty, plus the presence of Hobbits, Dwarves, Elves and Orcs, plus the presence of Arthurian-style knights (Paladins), and Assassins with an Old Man of the Mountain (I've got 1st ed in mind with that one), and Druids with certain well-defined Circles and leadership (I think 2nd ed had that also), plus .... does rule out a whole lot of themes.

Then add in reward mechanics which directly facilitate either Conanesque looting or overcoming (primarily combat) challenges (depending on edition) and certain other themes are ruled out (and life also becomes hard for the Paladin - no wonder Dragon had so many Paladin articles and Forum letters, and the web is now full of so many Paladin threads - but the incoherence of some aspects of D&D is really a separate topic).

Then add in alignment rules, whose original intended function seems to have been (i) to regulate conflict (be it racial, political, religious) within what are almost guaranteed to be extremely diverse PC parties; and (ii) to motivate those parties to go out and fight things (mostly evil things).

With all of this and more, at a certain point the range of viable premises (in the absence of rules changes of one sort or another) becomes fairly narrow. I don't know if you think it's fair to look to modules published by TSR and WoTC as a guide to the premises of the game, but an awful lot of them seem to involve otherwise disparate groups of people coming together in order to kill and loot evil types to stop them stealing/invading/raiding/conquering/otherwise threatening the well-being of the world, but never redistributing the loot to those innocents from whom it was stolen but rather keeping it for the powerup.

Is there a word for that genre other than D&D? I don't know, but it's definitely not generic.

The major change to the above that 4e seems to be making is first to try and reduce the unexplained disparateness of races and classes (by putting some racial history into the core books, by continuing to broaden the notion of what a paladin is, and so on - this has some similaritiy to what Monte Cook did in Arcana Unearthed) and by using PoL rather than alignment as the motivation for disparate people to come together and adventure (this has some similarity to the first Dragonlance novel).

Hence why I think that 4e is not doing something new in setting up a context and premise for play - it's just (IMO) doing it better.

Likewise, neither RM or RQ support solely grim and gritty play (in fact, referring to either as "grim and gritty" will likely get a laugh out of people who have actually played them). Both do and are fully capable of supporting high heroics. To say otherwise is wholly innacurate.

I have played RM more than monthly for the past 17 years, so know pretty well what sort of play it does and doesn't support. I know RQ less well, but I still know it.

Assuming no rules changes, in both systems the threat of character death is ever-present in combat, when jumping chasms and so on, mostly because of critical success and critical failure/fumble rules. The presence of magic of course makes a huge difference, especially in RM where it can easily be over-the top - I entered this qualification (paranthetically) in my earlier posts.

Whether or not they support high heroics depends, I guess, on what you mean by heroics. Neither supports especially well the idea that a fighter might beat a lion or tiger, or even a dragon, in unarmed combat without the aid of magic. For me, this difference from D&D (and all the mechanical elements that bring it about) makes for a radical difference in supported playstyle. Those differences are only reinforced every time I convert a D&D module into RM (which I do frequently).

and, incidentally, by the RAW grim and gritty play is absolutely supported by several editions of D&D.

Every edition of D&D with which I'm familar allows a mortal warrior to become sufficiently puissant to defeat lions and tigers in hand-to-hand combat at mid levels, and to do the same to dragons at high levels, without the aid of magic. How is this the RAW supporting grim and gritty play?

 

[The Little Raven]

I think this is where we are getting our wires crossed.

Agreed.

i am not suggesting a "basic Set" (even if I think it is a good idea). I am suggesting that if the intent is to draw in new players with the traditional 3 book, $100 buy in model, using those tools that worked so well in the Red Box at the front of both the PHB and the DMG would be well worth the "lost" 20 pages or so, and far more worthwhile in that endeavor than a "starter town".

I'd disagree about putting any of that stuff in the PHB, which should merely contain the rules and examples that players need. I could agree about it being in the DMG, because it should be in there with the starter town and starter dungeon.

I mean, if you are going to put a "starter" anything in the DMG, shouldn't it be a "starter dungeon" (unless, of course, your goal is to get those new players to go spend another $20 on the first module out the gate, the one that actually shows what playing the game is like).

Well, remember, the starter town comes with a starter dungeon built into it. That's a perfect way for the new DM to just crack open the DMG, spend a few minutes reading over Fallcrest and it's surroundings and get the players going immediately.

To me, that's a perfect jumping-off point for a new DM.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I disagree with the premise that 4e is more "integrated" in a way harmful to homebrewing. In fact, I'd guess just the opposite.

Take classes as an example. In 3e, classes tended to work in vastly different ways. Spellcasters were "front-loaded" with abilities that could be used once a day, while rogues could keep chugging all day long. Some classes, like fighters, were kept exceedingly vague in hopes of "flexibility"; others, like monks, had all sorts of weird restrictions tied on for "flavor" reasons. Some were vastly more powerful than others. So every time a homebrewer or third party tried to make a new class, they had to grapple with all these issues. How "flavorful" and regimented should a class be? How should its capabilities be paced across the "adventuring day"? What type of stuff should it DO - is it "overpowered" to have a class that can, say, heal and also deal lots of melee damage? Should a new class be powerful like a cleric or wimpy like a bard?

4e takes care of a LOT of this. In 4e, we know that classes should:
-All be about the same power level (probably a design goal in 3e too, but hopefully done better now).
-Fit into one of four "roles": defender, striker, leader or controller.
-Have a mix of daily, encounter, and at-will powers (probably with flexible proportions of each).
-Be flexible enough for lots of different "builds" but unified enough to carry a strong flavor. (Wizards and fighters are getting a lot more specific "flavor" in 4e, while classes like paladins and rangers are getting more flexibility. I'm betting "talent trees", basically class-specific feats, will help a lot here.)

The same is true of monsters. Before, we had HD (which didn't tell us much), CR (which I *still* don't get), and level, all playing poorly together with a ton of math involved. Now, in 4e, monsters will be sorted by level, difficulty (elite/solo/normal/minion), and role (skirmisher/brute/mastermind/etc), making it easier for a DM to pick out a balanced and interesting encounter AND making it easier for monster designers to tell players what to do with their creations. Plus, hey, less math for DMs always makes life easier for homebrewers.

Wanna make homebrew races? 4e makes it easier, by raising the power baseline, adding racial feats, and getting rid of level adjustments.

And if you don't like the Feywild, the new Abyss, or the way they've remade red dragons? Change them, just like you did Mordenkainen's Whatever in 3e. Heck, modifying the dragon should be easier, because now that he's down to a handful of iconic powers, you can remove them and sub in new powers as you see fit (rather than sorting through tables and tables to modify ability scores, spell-like abilities, and so on).

Really, the only thing that seems HARDER about homebrewing in 4e is changing around the underlying rules. But at that point, you're messing with the "game system," not building a "game" on top of it.

 

[pemerton]

I have to disagree here; grim-gritty in the RQ style is very doable in 1E and 2E, especiallly with a few minor rules changes, and also since the cleric and magic-user spell lists are in the control of the DM moreso in those editions than newer ones.

I don't want to seem too quibbling or pedantic, but I think the need to change rules to facilitate that play style is evidence in favour of my contention rather than against it.

I do agree with you about GM control, however, and taken to its limit in 1st ed it could be used to try to enforce a different playstyle from the principal one supported. But I still don't see how you circumvent the issue of mid-level fighters being able to beat great cats bare-handed.

also, questing was supported quite well in 1E and 2E, also, as long as the questing was tied to monsters fought during the quest.

Right - which is quite different from LoTR questing, I think, or Grail-questing, but perhaps closer to other sorts of questing (like beating Ogres and Dragons and rescuing maidens).

However, the training rules from 1E were not very supportive of questing, I'll admit, since using them required lots of gold -- but then, the training rules were meant to relieve characters of some of those hoards of gold and valuables found during adventuring, so they weren't strictly necessary.

All true, but again my quibble about rules changes applies. There's also the problem that without all that gold you won't get the XPs to level.

That said, there WAS a central premise, once which doesn't have to exist currently -- the original premise was that you find monsters, kill them, and take their stuff. Now, a group of PCs could spend their entire time embroiled in intrigues in a city, never touch a weapon for ten sessions, and make it to 6th level! (Wouldn't want to be a game I played in, but that's just me. ) And you could make the bards, beguilers, and mages necessary to do this very thing, without a fighter in sight.

Are you envisaging awarding XPs for overcoming challenges in non-combat fashion, or are you envisaging an alternative XP system to the CR system? I've never felt that 3E supports the latter in more than a handwavy sort of fashion, especially because level gain (the output of XP gain) is aimed primarily at enhancing combat capability, and not at enhancing the stuff for which an alternative XP system would give rewards - such alternative systems therefore seem to be at least mildly incoherent.

In 4E, I'm curious to see how they'll solve this playstyle, because a character who isn't using their combat-related powers sound like they're going to be wasting half their abilities.

If I wanted to play that sort of game I'm not entirely sure why I'd use D&D - but maybe the social challenge rules will give an answer to this!

 

[Reynard]

I'd disagree about putting any of that stuff in the PHB, which should merely contain the rules and examples that players need.

So the new player doesn't need anything other than rules and examples? I disagree more than I can express in words.

Well, remember, the starter town comes with a starter dungeon built into it. That's a perfect way for the new DM to just crack open the DMG, spend a few minutes reading over Fallcrest and it's surroundings and get the players going immediately.

To me, that's a perfect jumping-off point for a new DM.

Except the new DM doesn't have any idea how the rules work. So he cracks open the book, looks at the players who havent even sussed out what an action is or how to take one, and says, "You are at the entrance to the dungeon." When they ask, "What do we see," he says, "Um... I don't know," and starts flipping through to find the vision rules. No.

Here's the thing: Despite all this talk of "new players" WotC is targetting the existing player base -- first through the internet, and now through the 4E preview books. Without rolling out a teaching/learning tool along with the core rules, they know that the only way to increase their player pool is through the traditional method: having veterans teach newbies and get them hooked.

 

[Reynard]

If I wanted to play that sort of game I'm not entirely sure why I'd use D&D - but maybe the social challenge rules will give an answer to this!

Complete Tangent: The idea of social challenge rules bugs me, mostly from the perspective that role-playing is one of those player-based skills, like tactical acumen, that is best left out of the rules system. I mean, would you let a player roll his character's Tactics skill to know how to better position his mini to avoid a AoO, or let the wizard roll Spellcraft to better choose which spell to prepare and/or cast?

 

[Henry]

Right - which is quite different from LoTR questing, I think, or Grail-questing, but perhaps closer to other sorts of questing (like beating Ogres and Dragons and rescuing maidens.

By my recollection, didn't the Fellowship fight Nazgul, Balrogs, Uruk-hai (basically levelled orcs), ghosts, oliphants, cave trolls, and God knows what else? That stuff would have definitely levelled the group up quite a bit (even Frodo and Sam got some orc and Shelob action, in addition to the Balrog, the barrow wights, and other things).

Are you envisaging awarding XPs for overcoming challenges in non-combat fashion, or are you envisaging an alternative XP system to the CR system? I've never felt that 3E supports the latter in more than a handwavy sort of fashion, especially because level gain (the output of XP gain) is aimed primarily at enhancing combat capability, and not at enhancing the stuff for which an alternative XP system would give rewards - such alternative systems therefore seem to be at least mildly incoherent.

The former, because it's already supported in the XP awards section of the 3.5 DMG. Whether you kill the minotaur, sneak past him, or sell him Amway and become his buddy, you're overcoming his challenge.

If I wanted to play that sort of game I'm not entirely sure why I'd use D&D - but maybe the social challenge rules will give an answer to this!

In 1E and 2E, I'd kind of agree with you -- but in 3E, the skills system, as well as the stuff for winning friends and influencing people among beguilers, bards, and the like made a totally non-combat group a possible option in the game. I'm only hoping 4E can perform the same trick, even if the classes are more geared towards usefulness in combat at all stages.

 

[Henry]

Complete Tangent: The idea of social challenge rules bugs me, mostly from the perspective that role-playing is one of those player-based skills, like tactical acumen, that is best left out of the rules system. I mean, would you let a player roll his character's Tactics skill to know how to better position his mini to avoid a AoO, or let the wizard roll Spellcraft to better choose which spell to prepare and/or cast?

Actually, those don't bug me, and 3E I think did a great job at implementing them, though not perfect by any means. And actually, a wizard CAN roll spellcraft as it is now to "choose which spell to cast" -- counterspell action even states that out as the way it works.

 

[Reynard]

Actually, those don't bug me, and 3E I think did a great job at implementing them, though not perfect by any means. And actually, a wizard CAN roll spellcraft as it is now to "choose which spell to cast" -- counterspell action even states that out as the way it works.

::shiver:: the player has to be responsible for something.

 

[pemerton]

Reynard, as always a pleasure to get a reply from you. As usual, unfortunately, I don't know that I can fully agree.

2E: 5th level fighter in chainmail with a shielf and a sword with 25 hit points versus a tiger with 25 hit points. The fighter hits the tiger 20% of the time. The tiger hits the fighter 40% of the time. The fighter deals 1-8 points of damage. the tiger deals a total of 5-20 points of damage. That is going to be one hell of a grim and gritty fight -- and you know how I accomplished it? Low magic, 3d6 straight up for stats. ta da!

I'll admit that "mid-level" is a bit ambiguous. But first I didn't intend that it's automatic for all fighters, only that it's possible for many. So here's my build (1st ed, not 2nd, because of greater familiary, but I hope that doesn't make too much difference).

My fighter will have chain and shield like yours, and a STR of 17, CON of 16 and DEX of 15, and will be 7th level. This is not an uncommon stat spread for 1st ed PCs and NPCs.

I will give the fighter specialisation for another +1 to hit and +2 to damage.

The fighter's base THACO at that level is 14, meaning a 9 required to hit the tiger's AC 5 (going from memory here) plus 2 for stat and specialisation meaning a successful hit on 7 or better - that's 70% of the time.

The fighter has 7d10 +14 hits - I'll be generous to my fighter and say 60 hits. Certainly not unheard of.

I'm doing my big cat from memory, but I'm saying HD 5+5, damage 1-6/1-6/1-8 for an average of nearly 30 hit points and 11.5 points on a successful hit (I've dropped the raking damage, but I think I've also overestimated the claw damage, so I'll call that a wash). The 1st ed monster attack tables are funny but a 5+ HD monster is probably similar to our fighter, therefore needing an 11 to hit our fighter's AC of 3. The average damage to our fighter is thus about 6 hp per round, so the fighter can stand against the tiger for 10 rounds, needing to do 3 hp per round to win. With a 70% chance to hit, this requires an attack with average damage of 4.5. Bare hands will do this: 1d2 +3 for STR and specialisation.

Hence my contention that a fairly typical mid-level fighter in 1st ed can beat a great cat in combat bare-handed. Maybe I'm overestimating big cats and underestimating the advantage that chain and a shield would grant, but this strikes me as a near-superhuman feat.

I think the numbers would play out in a similar fashion for wild boars, bears and (at higher levels) dragons. Again, all this strikes me as superhuman.

AD&D is supremely easy to modify by simple inclusion and exclusion, by controlling the rate of advancement and by controlling the treasure output.

<snip>

Not to mention that the LOTR quest involves a whole heaping of magical treasure, which does in fact grant XP -- and it isn't like anyone but the hobbits "levelled" as it was.

This is all true - but as I replied to Henry, it's really changing the parameters of the game. For example, is a game without levelling, or without reasonable amounts of treasure, really AD&D? That's certainly not the paradigm AD&D experience as the rulebooks promise it, where the emphasis is all about improving one's character by way of successful adventuring.

2E again. Lots of rules for giving characters XP for doing stuff their class should be doing, plus rules for giving "story" XP. In fact, even 1E and the RC talk about story XP.

I don't remember there being any rules for this in 1E. In 2E I think its part of what produces tensions in play - my Thief wants to go and steal, your Wizard wants to go off and make potions, where's the party play and how does this all relate to the mechanics of character improvement which put combat ability front and centre?

I have never heard it suggested that AD&D 2E's system was the problem -- it was a combination of bad business decisions and a changing marketplace and one individual's incompetencies.

I'm not equipped with market research data or anything of that sort. But I think the proliferation of both (frequently inconsistent) optional rules systems (Completes, Options etc) and settings (many of which themselves involved substantial changes to mechanics as well as flavour) are evidence that (or at least consistent with the proposition that) the game had trouble with its system. The game couldn't decide what it was trying to be or do, what sort of gaming experience it was intended to deliver.

This is highly controversial, of course, but I regard it as further evidence for my view that one of the most striking features of 3E (which did resuscitate the game in a major way) was to be very definite (and increasingly so over time) about the relationship between system and gaming experience. I don't think its a coincidence that from the beginning the designers avoided what I am identifying above as one of the major problems with 2nd ed as a system.

I thinkt hat is a very narrow viewpoint and I think that if you looked at all the things D&D was capable of, you'd find that it is a robust toolkit that allows you to play whatever kind of fantasy you want.

Fair enough. I think it's a realistic viewpoint. I've played a lot of D&D and have found it gives one sort of experience, but not another. For that other experience I play other fantasy RPGs which are configured to deliver it.

Remember, I'm not arguing that D&D is no good (I have identified some incoherencies, but other major systems like RQ and RM suffer from these also - only in 2nd ed AD&D do I really feel that these make for a game that can be hard to have fun with). I'm just arguing that it has always provided a context and parameters to facilitate a particular sort of play, and therefore that 4e is no different in this respect (though it is doing it in a different, more up front and (IMO) better way).

We can only assume that WotC has done the kind of market research that gives them accurate information, and therefore while you are right, it speaks more of a changing marketplace than anything else. D&D appeared at a very specific time in a very specific culture. It was a rpoduct of a world without powerful computer games or, really, anything that did what D&D does. It is a dinosaur. it is on its way out. TTRPGs cannot compete for the mindspace of the generation raised on XBoxes and high end PCs. The hobby will never die, but as an industry it is on its last leg.

You may be better informed than me on the financial state of the industry, but to the extent that I have a view about RPGing in general it is a bit different. I agree that the social and recreational milieu has changed, but I think what will help to keep the hobby alive (and hopefully the industry also) is precisely that games are being produced which are better games, with greater appeal to a wider range of game players, than those that came before.