D&D General Games People Play: Looking at the Gaming Aspects of D&D

[Cruentus]

I guess Ill rephrase my disagreement. I think D&D is designed with intention of long campaigns by default so it seems like rules lite games may lack the support in comparison. There is much "D&D is king, and everything else is second fiddle" on the net talk. I'm not saying you are making this claim, but the claim here may lean into it. I like to avoid general statements and be more specific in these discussions out of respect that I feel the games deserve. Perhaps thats a bit of a distinction that doesnt matter or is overly sensitive, but I still like to steer conversations this way.

Could be, I think it also has a lot to do with how tangible a rules heavy game system is. For example, you have piles and piles of discussions across the net on how to build a combat character. However, not many on how characters live their lives, achieve their goals, drive the narrative forward. You have a detailed road map on how the game is played here, and more importantly, rules that say what is in and out of bounds. The achievements are by the book so its easy to tell you are doing it right. As opposed to the interpretive style that is ambiguous, flexible, and often intangible in comparison.

As I have gotten older, I much prefer Fitzgerald's illusory progress. I like combats that make sense, are important, that matter. D&D obviously has those, but they also have grinds of 8 a day and 20 levels worth of manuals built in. At this point it’s actually working against my instincts to want to play D&D, and I know that makes me an outlier.

I’m in the same camp about wanting DnD to be something more immersive, with things that matter, and that are more flexible. So, I don’t think you’re as much of an outlier as you think.

The thing about rules is that people tend to want to follow them in games, many times, to an extreme degree. Which is interesting in DnD, where the earliest versions spelled out “do what you want, these are all basically guidelines.” But those guidelines had the whiff of officialdom, required official erratas and Sage Advice, and folks wouldn’t touch anything without the ’official’ imprimatur.

I find myself going back to Basic/Old School Essentials Advanced, and playing the game in a more narrow, grounded way. It helps that my players are willing to go along with it, and we’re enjoying a more slow burn, exploration, building out the starting village, occupants, and ‘setting’ without 8 combats a day, umpteen abilities, and little to no threat of death.

One game I’m running using OSE:A is Strahd. It’s been interesting with a thief, a fighter, and two fighter hirelings in the party (around 2nd level right now, adapting CoS). The other (mostly by email, with some VTT for important moments) has a pretty standard party led by a thief, with an assassin, a wizard, and a fighter, who are tightly tied into their home town, where the thief wants to be a merchant… not your typical DnD, for sure (and they’re all first level atm). But building out the world collaboratively, drafting in ideas and things beyond the rules, and mixing and matching alternate systems are also part of our fun.

 

[loverdrive]

Specifically, @loverdrive had a post some time ago stating that while she adored Blades in the Dark ("BiTD"), she didn't find that it was much of a game.

Well, I have a pretty rigid criteria of what feels like a game to me: when at every point of interaction I can say "yeah, that was fair and deserved".

Pretty much none of RPGs feel like games to me, as RPGs, are, by their nature, impossible to replay. There's no way I can end up in the exact same scenario I was before to see whether a different option would yield different results.

I'm working on, uhm, compartmentalizing the game into a small subset of the actual process, and I hope I'll release a new game soon-ish. So, I guess, stay tuned, I'm not dead.

Rules-lite games don't generally support long campaigns.

I'd say, rules-heavy games demand long campaigns, because everything moves so goddamn slow. There's a limited amount of things you can "say" through this character in this game world.

If there was a rules-heavy game that moves as fast as, say, Apocalypse World, there would be no year-long campaigns played with it either.

 

[loverdrive]

Funnily, both the design and the "culture" around D&D specifically and games of it's ilk generally, is pretty decidedly anti-game.

High degree of randomness certainly doesn't help, but more importantly, it's expected that players... Actively refuse to play the goddamn game. It's frowned upon to look up monster stats, it's expected from the GM to change the adventure and playing module that you know by heart? Unspeakable!

You shouldn't even try to get better at D&D, or you are a dirty metagamer and cheater.

And not even mentioning that there's a person at the table who isn't bound by the rules (and a notion that they should be is heresy), so... Yeah.

 

[Voadam]

I am a huge fan of the more D&D OSR krigspiel style of playing your character freeform and engaging in player skill engagements with the situation narratively without dice mechanics. Immersive first person roleplay is a big joy for me.

I do however also generally deeply enjoy the mechanical subgame of D&D combat. Rolling attacks, using mechanical options, and engaging with the combat rules and specific tactical situation.

A lot of D&D combat hits a pretty sweet spot for me. GURPS is too fiddly with one second combat rounds, and a lot of death spiral systems like White Wolf and Shadowrun are a bit too all or nothing for my tastes. Unless I am one shot taken out of a combat through petrification or whatever or have nothing my PC can actually do, I generally enjoy most D&D fights where people generally have contributions to make each round. 4e was a particular highlight of combat design for me with PC and monster roles and fun movement aspects and at will powers and specials that generally worked well, but I have generally enjoyed D&D combat from B/X through 5e.

 

[Clint_L]

I'd say, rules-heavy games demand long campaigns, because everything moves so goddamn slow. There's a limited amount of things you can "say" through this character in this game world.

If there was a rules-heavy game that moves as fast as, say, Apocalypse World, there would be no year-long campaigns played with it either.

That is one way of looking at it, for sure, but the question remains: why do so many players enjoy that kind of play? They could be saying, "nope, this takes way too long and everything moves so goddamn slow." But they're not. They are voting with their time and money in support of that style of RPG.

Thus my speculation above: the complicated rules, coupled with gradual level progression and randomization (e.g. dice) - what I think Snarf is calling the "crunchy gaminess" - are features rather than a flaws.

 

[Malmuria]

Agreed, but when I talk about the gaminess of systems, I think I'm getting to something slightly different.

It's not just that dice rolls matter. In my rules-lite games, and BiTD, there are dice, and the dice rolls definitely matter in terms of taking some control away. They do have an influence on the narrative!

But it's usually missing that pure dice goodness, if you know what I mean. I like D&D because it's "more than just a boardgame," but D&D also still has those boardgame roots. Which is a source of tension, at times, but there are times when I want more game, less story.

That's interesting, because for me BitD has quite a bit of structure via discrete mechanics; honestly it can be a lot to keep in mind at any one time. Perhaps the distinction is that those mechanics basically operate as a set of extensive qualitative guidelines. E.g. you have reduced position but increased effect using a level 2 quality item against a member of a tier IV gang and then you roll success with complications and...the GM kinda has to figure out what all that means.

That said, when I want something gamey, I usually just want an actual board game or card game. Because I want to win! And success in a ttrpg doesn't feel as satisfying as winning at, say poker, where you get to take your friends' money.

 

[loverdrive]

That is one way of looking at it, for sure, but the question remains: why do so many players enjoy that kind of play? They could be saying, "nope, this takes way too long and everything moves so goddamn slow." But they're not. They are voting with their time and money in support of that style of RPG.

The point is, long campaigns aren't a some kind of feature of rules-heavy games. It's a byproduct of human beings resolving complex rules that makes the density of important events per session low.

D&D, when played on a properly configured VTT that automates everything isn't suited for years-long campaigns either, because you are chewing of 3-4 PnP sessions worth of content in one.

 

[soviet]

Storygame style RPGs are often just quicker at getting to the narrative turning points than something more traditional. They tend to use up the story fuel of the characters or campaign premise in a shorter time period. A one year Other Worlds campaign and a three year D&D campaign might cover an identical set of story beats.

It's also worth noting that if a rules-heavy longform game like D&D is seen as the norm, when a group alters one dial (rules heaviness) they might be more likely to also alter another dial (game length).

 

[Voadam]

The point is, long campaigns aren't a some kind of feature of rules-heavy games. It's a byproduct of human beings resolving complex rules that makes the density of important events per session low.

D&D, when played on a properly configured VTT that automates everything isn't suited for years-long campaigns either, because you are chewing of 3-4 PnP sessions worth of content in one.

I find this a bizarre statement as I am in year 3 now of DMing a (mostly) weekly 5e D&D campaign on fantasy grounds.

 

[mamba]

You shouldn't even try to get better at D&D, or you are a dirty metagamer and cheater.

You can get better by learning more about your char, its skills etc. but you cannot look ahead in the published adventure. That is the difference between studying for a test and cheating by having access to the questions in advance