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

[Thomas Shey]

That’s the one. WWN came pretty close to what we wanted, but there were a few things that lead me to doing my own thing. It’s definitely had an influence though.

That one struck in my brain because I really want to like Crawford's work more than I do (though I'm more interested in Godbound than most of his other material. Its too bad it looks like its one of those cases that everyone iterates one resource in combat until the first person runs out, and then they lose).

 

[Clint_L]

I think you're leaving out a hell of a big middle here, or defining things as "basically D&D" that really aren't, in some important ways. There's some pretty well-known trad games that aren't very D&D-like but are not specialized indie games, either.

Am I? How big is that middle? Name me some names? What I see is a metric crap ton of people playing D&D and its variants, and not much of a middle at all.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I consider D&D-like games to be 1. interactive story-based RPGs, 2. Heavily rules-based (i.e. the come with big books of rules), 3. Progression-based 4. Are built around the use of dice or similar randomizing tools. I consider all editions of D&D, Call of Cthulhu, Pathfinder, Shadowrun, and many others to be essentially iterations on the system that Arneson and Gygax invented in the sense that I think they push the same psychological buttons. Most of the differences are just theming and specific rules.

I am aware that the term "indie RPG" is very broad; I use it to refer to Forge-type games. I think these are substantially different from D&D-type games at a functional level.

 

[Kariotis]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I consider D&D-like games to be 1. interactive story-based RPGs, 2. Heavily rules-based (i.e. the come with big books of rules), 3. Progression-based 4. Are built around the use of dice or similar randomizing tools. I consider all editions of D&D, Call of Cthulhu, Pathfinder, Shadowrun, and many others to be essentially iterations on the system that Arneson and Gygax invented in the sense that I think they push the same psychological buttons. Most of the differences are just theming and specific rules.

I can see how most TTRPGs out there are basically iterations of D&D. If you had to choose one of them to play with your friends forever, which one would it be? In other words, what is, to your mind and taste, the best iteration of this combination of game elements yet?

 

[kenada]

That one struck in my brain because I really want to like Crawford's work more than I do (though I'm more interested in Godbound than most of his other material. Its too bad it looks like its one of those cases that everyone iterates one resource in combat until the first person runs out, and then they lose).

I’m going to keep details limited since this isn’t really the thread for it, but the two big issues for me were: it does a different kind of sandbox that I wanted (more adventure- than exploration-oriented), and the faction stuff just didn’t seem to work at all.

 

[Clint_L]

I can see how most TTRPGs out there are basically iterations of D&D. If you had to choose one of them to play with your friends forever, which one would it be? In other words, what is, to your mind and taste, the best iteration of this combination of game elements yet?

Hmmm...that's a good question. I run 5e because of reasons that aren't about the game itself, but because I run a bunch of campaigns for beginners at my school. They want to play D&D because it's what they've heard of and what their friends play, and DnDBeyond makes my life a lot easier by automating a lot of the math and giving them all access to the material (WotC has an incredibly generous programme for sponsoring school groups through DnDBeyond).

As far as D&D goes, I think 5e is the best iteration in the sense that it is the most consistent and thus easiest to teach with. For similar games...I've always loved Call of Cthulhu but maybe I'm just a sucker for percentile dice and tentacles. I dunno. Frankly, to me the "which is better" debate between these D&D-type RPGs is a bit like debating Coke vs. Pepsi. I just don't have super passionate feelings about whether Pathfinder is better than D&D or vice versa.

For me, a huge selling point of indie-type RPGs is that they are actually distinct. A game of Fiasco is not really like anything else (I recently fused a game of Fiasco into a session of a 5e campaign. It was interesting!).

 

[Enrahim2]

I think a key part to D&Ds apeal and longlivity is that it can provide a very wide range of completely different experiencesm all that can be considered "game".

Dixit, Pictionary, Yatzee, Pool, Trivial Pursuit, MTG, and ASL are all clearly games, even though each are providing incredibly different experiences. However each of these provide a much more defined experience than what D&D provides. Indeed I think a major failure of 4ed was that it provided a somewhat well defined experience.

The beauty of not having the gaming experience well defined is that it can be adapted to the mood of the group. If one dont feel like monster bashing an evening you might have to cancel your Gloomhaven apointment, but you can still join your D&D group. Just mentioning that you are more in the mood for exploration/roleplay/progressing story/solving puzzles/shopping/strategizing or any other sort of activity, and have a fair chance that you indeed can get a bit of that. The others can adapt.

Basically just "hanging out with friends" never gets old, and playing D&D is an activity with not much more restrictions than that.

As such is it gamey? It can be, if you want it to. There are enough stuff that can support an absurd number of kinds of gaming experiences. But there are little that force it to be gamey in any particular way. And indeed there are nothing that forces it to be a game at all. It is fully possible to have a D&D session that do not interact with rules at all, and are just a group of friends sitting around a table talking about fun stuff and ideas.

This is the beauty of a "weakly" designed "game". As there are no clear good way to play it, noone should call out anyone for "playing it wrong" no matter what their take on it is. Just don't be a jerk, as that is loosing at life

 

[Thomas Shey]

Am I? How big is that middle? Name me some names? What I see is a metric crap ton of people playing D&D and its variants, and not much of a middle at all.

Does RuneQuest not exist? Or are we back to "anything smaller than D&D doesn't matter"?

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I consider D&D-like games to be 1. interactive story-based RPGs, 2. Heavily rules-based (i.e. the come with big books of rules), 3. Progression-based 4. Are built around the use of dice or similar randomizing tools. I consider all editions of D&D, Call of Cthulhu, Pathfinder, Shadowrun, and many others to be essentially iterations on the system that Arneson and Gygax invented in the sense that I think they push the same psychological buttons. Most of the differences are just theming and specific rules.

Ah, then your definition is so broad I'd consider it useless. Carry on.

 

[Clint_L]

Does RuneQuest not exist? Or are we back to "anything smaller than D&D doesn't matter"?



Ah, then your definition is so broad I'd consider it useless. Carry on.

Yeah, I feel like if you'd actually read my carefully written and possibly wrong but certainly thoughtfully considered points, you might have had something more to say, because you would know that I was interested in looking at the underlying psychological mechanisms of these games. But you clearly didn't, so I'll take your snark in the spirit with which it was obviously intended.

 

[loverdrive]

First, I'm sorry if I lose the thread of the discussion. I'm still at extended vacation and I'm very rarely sober and/or well-slept.

Why is D&D the gorilla in the room, instead of Shadowrun or Call of Cthulhu or Pathfinder or one of any number of other games that are, design-wise, more or less the same? I don't think marketing is the answer; D&D has a history of crap marketing. I think it was there first, colonizing brains, and none of those other games are really different enough to overcome that basic fact.

To put on a tinfoil hat, I'd say the fact that D&D doesn't really support anything is intentional exploitation of its cultural cachet. An average person probably heard of D&D and didn't hear of any other TTRPG, so the fraction of them who then try playing D&D don't see how heroic exploits of a rag-tag party of misfits is any more supported by it than running a catboy café, and conclude that game design doesn't exist.

More seriously, creative expression (storytelling) and skill expression (overcoming challenges) are at inherent odds with each other -- pursuing one automatically undermines the other. If you engage in Desert Storm levels of planning in D&D and then flawlessly execute an operation where you behead the dragon before it can even blink, like, yeah, cool, but the story you end up with will be... Bad. Like, you wouldn't want to see it on a silverscreen or read it in a book, because "heroes did everything right, didn't suffer and had no need to sacrfice anything" is just damn boring.

And you won't even be able to retell it as a story of your exploits to people who don't know your GM, yet alone to people who aren't familiar with D&D -- it would ring hollow. Yeah, cool, dude, you killed a dragon, so, anyway, I had this dream last night where Tilda Swinton was choking me...

There's this joke about the police here: "The fact that you are not in jail isn't your merit, but our flaw", and well... The only reason the 1st Tarrasque Cavalry Regiment of 3rd Archlich Army isn't hiding behind every corner is because the GM decided she doesn't want to put em there. She could. She didn't, but she could.

In a sense, GM is basically designing a game that only you can ever play, and other people will have no frame of reference to understand the significance of something. Yeah, the only reason why every enemy in Dark Souls isn't Ornstein&Smough is because From Software decided they don't want to put them there, but could, but other people can just go and experience the same game.

But if there were hard, strict rules on what GM can or cannot do in D&D, it would only enhance both the gameplay and...

Another way of looking at this is that D&D's potential flaws are actually behind its appeal. It has enough story to give a sense of purpose and continuity to the session, so that players want to keep coming back. They want to continue the story. It has enough gameplay elements so that players can engage in creative problem solving within various tactical and narrative restraints, and can aspire towards improvement if not perfection. Could it not be that D&D's "jack of all trades, master of none" design manages to strike a happy medium? It is, at its heart, a kind of half-assed game, and my conjecture is that Arneson, Gygax and co. kind of caught lightning in a bottle with this sort of game structure, in ways that work really well to trigger more or less addictive reactions in human brains.

...the story. Well, in a sense.

As I said, storytelling is fundamentally incompatible with overcomming challenges -- you either provide outcomes based on what makes the story good, or you don't. You can't have more than one first priority.

But if you embrace that the story is more or less linear and the "meat" of the game is, well, the game, it can enable greater intentionality in storytelling too.

I really enjoy Dishonored 2, now that I know how all endings are achieved and can deliberately work towards the one I want.

For a TTRPG example, right now I'm playing in a Dark Heresy campaign that uses an adventure I've already ran.

I know what is actually important to the plot and what isn't, what choices I'll have to make anyway and what choices lead to a branching path, and that allows me to express my character better — because I know the boundaries in which I can do so.

There's a segment that is pretty much a big long cutscene and I know that it's a big long cutscene where nothing of note can be done — so I don't even try to do anything of note and can focus on little things. Is my gal humbled and awestruck by a glorious cathedral devoted to the God-Emperor and will spend her time there in a constant prayer, taking the chance to attone for all the previous and future sins in a holy place where He might actually listen? Or is she wandering around in her tasteless but expensive garb, admiring lavishly decorated building with a sense of amusement, giggling at the reactions monks give her? Or maybe in her paranoia, she will suspect everyone, even in this sacred palace, of heresy and fake faith, looking for clues that aren't there?

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. PCs will be just handed the next clue in the morning, but expression is still cool!

Another player, who didn't know that it's nothing but a cutscene, spent the whole session trying to look under every rock, and was very frustrated he couldn't find anything. If the GM just bluntly said that he'll never find any traces, regardless of his actions or rolls, I reckon the guy would have a much better time.

 

[Clint_L]

If this is you at rarely sober or well-slept, then I feel even more out of my league, because I am fumbling around with some half-formed ideas here and you clearly know a lot more about this subject than I do. That said, I do have a lot of tolerance, as a player, with being in the dark. I kind of don't like it when the GM takes pity and then just gives the next clue; I think failure can be a fun story option. But then I also really enjoy games like Ten Candles where it isn't about whether you lose, but how.

 

[pemerton]

Indie RPGs are generally designed for one-shots or limited campaigns (certainly Forge-type games are).

This isn't true of HeroWars, Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant or The Dying Earth. (Just to name a few.)

 

[loverdrive]

That said, I do have a lot of tolerance, as a player, with being in the dark.

I mean, yeah, me too, otherwise I wouldn't stick around with RPGs long enough to even think about any of this. I'd just bounce off my first couple of campaigns.

I kind of don't like it when the GM takes pity and then just gives the next clue; I think failure can be a fun story option.

It's not really GM taking pitty, it's just how the adventure is written. The "cutscene" segment is a breather between two very intense gauntlets, an opportunity for both the players and the characters to relax a bit. And it's a Warhammer game, of course it needs a grand gothic cathedral.

But, since it is a Dark Heresy game, not a Shinning Faith game, yeah, it's pretty fair for players to assume that there must be something. If it was a video game, where options are inherently limited to what the designer intended, this confusion would last, at best, a couple minutes. But it's a TTRPG, so the players are free to do what they want.

Except they aren't, as they still need to progress the adventure and get to the actual content of the chapter. "Screw this inquisition stuff, we're going to join the monastery" or "we'll make so much ruckus that we'll be persecuted as heretics ourselves" aren't really an option, so I think going against the "folk wisdom" and directly telling the players what they can or cannot do is a good idea.

Dark Heresy is a very rules-heavy game that demands extensive prep. Combat is very brutal, so it requires a very delicate balance, the rules are plentiful so you need to have statblocks and stuff handy, and all of that combined leads to linear, largely pre-written campaigns, regardless of whether the GM bought one in .pdf format or written it herself.

 

[pemerton]

There's a segment that is pretty much a big long cutscene and I know that it's a big long cutscene where nothing of note can be done — so I don't even try to do anything of note and can focus on little things. Is my gal humbled and awestruck by a glorious cathedral devoted to the God-Emperor and will spend her time there in a constant prayer, taking the chance to attone for all the previous and future sins in a holy place where He might actually listen? Or is she wandering around in her tasteless but expensive garb, admiring lavishly decorated building with a sense of amusement, giggling at the reactions monks give her? Or maybe in her paranoia, she will suspect everyone, even in this sacred palace, of heresy and fake faith, looking for clues that aren't there?

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. PCs will be just handed the next clue in the morning, but expression is still cool!

Another player, who didn't know that it's nothing but a cutscene, spent the whole session trying to look under every rock, and was very frustrated he couldn't find anything. If the GM just bluntly said that he'll never find any traces, regardless of his actions or rolls, I reckon the guy would have a much better time.

I'm not a big fan of cutscenes in RPGing. But I agree it serves everyone better if the GM tells the players what is up for grabs and what isn't.

I don't understand why default GMing culture is to keep that stuff secret, so that players spend time faffing about pointlessly.

 

[loverdrive]

I'm not a big fan of cutscenes in RPGing. But I agree it serves everyone better if the GM tells the players what is up for grabs and what isn't.

I don't understand why default GMing culture is to keep that stuff secret, so that players spend time faffing about pointlessly.

I found myself generally enjoying limited "bursts" of real agency, but only when I know when those happen. But maybe it's because I have a soft spot for Dark Heresy and the GM is hot, so maybe I'd enjoy the game regardless of anything, huh.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Whats really interesting is how the pillars of D&D are viewed. The social pillar, for example, seems to fall into that Tarrot level of interpretation mentioned in the OP. Most folks are ok with that to some various degrees. However, the combat pillar seems to be much more rule exact driven. The "game" here is more of a focus and the stakes seem much more tangible. Exploration lands somewhere in the middle.

I've found that the need for rules rises in conjunction with the players' fear of loss.

D&D's extensive combat rules tell me that the loss players fear is the loss of their character, significantly.

If you could flub a Persuasion check and get your character killed or permanently unplayable or something, we'd want a lot more rules around that check.

If you were immortal in combat, it'd probably be fine to just roll d20 + level to see how quickly you kill those goblins.

Fact is, a failed social encounter can sometimes be more fun than a successful one. There's usually very little to lose there.

 

[Enrahim2]

More seriously, creative expression (storytelling) and skill expression (overcoming challenges) are at inherent odds with each other

I think I see what you are gettig at, but I think I still have to strongly disagree with the generality of this claim. I can agree that if you have a scenario where a player can decide between wining and story, then there is clearly at odds. And this might in essence very often be the case for TTRPG scenarios.

However this do not need to be the case. For one thing given a realy difficult scenario with a very large option space, there are usually room for signifificant creative expression in how you decide to approach the problem. And as far as I know it is generally recogniced that high level of creativity is often rewarded by high chance of success via the DM fiat mechanism of traditional TTRPGs.

Another important nuance here is the difference between in story characters overcoming challenges, and the player overcoming challenges. The purest example I can think of for this is The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen. Here one player is telling a story while the other players may chip in with a short question introducing a complication. Each complication typically involve some challenge that the character of the story need to overcome. However the main challenge for the storyteller isn't to come up with just any solution to the challenge (which might be quite trivial as there are very few limitations on what they can narate), but rather figuring how to narate overcoming the challenge in such a way that it inspires more questions, as that is what is fueling the "performance gauge" of the game. As such the player's active intent to overcome this challenge also explicitly involve trying to make a good story.

Another take on this is my own creation storyboard. There main loop of that game involve the hero being presented by a challenge, and the players should figure out how the hero overcome that challenge. However the main challenge for the players are that this has to be done over a number of "scenes" that one of the participant deem "relevant. The traditional GM roles are distributed among the players, so the rules are not really providing any creative limitation at all. But in order to succeed the players need to spin a strong enough story that the judge (who also was the player that chose the challenge) deem enough of the scenes "relevant". Again actively trying to overcome the challenge drives choices that is good for the story.

Going back to D&D 5ed it can be mentioned that they do have the inspiration mechanics that serve a similar purpose, though extremely watered down compored to the sources I feel quite certain inspired it.

 

[loverdrive]

I think I see what you are gettig at, but I think I still have to strongly disagree with the generality of this claim. I can agree that if you have a scenario where a player can decide between wining and story, then there is clearly at odds. And this might in essence very often be the case for TTRPG scenarios.

However this do not need to be the case. For one thing given a realy difficult scenario with a very large option space, there are usually room for signifificant creative expression in how you decide to approach the problem. And as far as I know it is generally recogniced that high level of creativity is often rewarded by high chance of success via the DM fiat mechanism of traditional TTRPGs.

When I talk about "creative expression" I mean the process of creation, of expressing an idea or feeling through something. English is far from being my first language, so maybe there's a better term, I don't know.

"Skill expression" (expressing your ability to play the game well) can be creative (as in, extraordinary, unexpected), but it is different from expressing ideas. Think about it this way: combining two pieces of armour from different sets (or race and class, or a weapon and feat, whatever) in an unexpected way because you've found a synergy between them and the rest of your build is skill expression — you're showing off your skill at utilizing the rules of the game in cool ways. Combining two pieces of armour from different sets because you think they look nice together is creative expression — you're showing off your fashion sense.

The results may overlap (an outfit that looks cool may also be very effective), but it's a question of intent — you can't have more than one first priority.

Also, it's worth noting that skill expression doesn't necessarily mean "winning at all costs", often it involves deliberately handicapping yourself or doing stupid s##t just to flex that you can. Running at your enemies head-first as a sniper is probably a bad idea, but if you are confident in your ability to quickscope, it's a truly thrilling experience that also showcases your aiming and movement skills.

Also also it's worth noting that creative expression can be achieved through gameplay — game design is a creative field too. You can use the rules to, say, build a character that feels like a bear, conveying the feeling and emotion through gameplay interactions the same way you could through musical notes or written words.

Regardless, I'll probably need to develop a better vocabulary.

Another important nuance here is the difference between in story characters overcoming challenges, and the player overcoming challenges

It is an important disctinction, but I am talking exclusively about the player. In most kinds of stories there will be challenges for the characters to overcome, especially in our euro-centric (or northamerico-centric, I guess?) world.

Your Storyboard sounds awesome and right up my alley, can I have a link?

It and Munchausen (that I honestly completely forgot about, thank you for reminding me!) sound like outliers, so I guess it needs more pondering. My gut instinct is to say that "creating for the sake of creation" and "creating to please the jury" are two different things, but I'm probably trying to justify my preconceived notions.

 

[Enrahim2]

Your Storyboard sounds awesome and right up my alley, can I have a link?

Storyboard

Author Rune Valle Description This is a game where you and your friends are going together to make a story. What kind of story? It will become a story about a hero that in some way or another has t…

norwegianstyle.wordpress.com

As for your distinction between creative and skill expression - i agree that they are different dimentions, but I still fail to see why they should be in conflict. After all, isnt great art usually considered an extraordinary feat of both creative and skill expression?

 

[payn]

I've found that the need for rules rises in conjunction with the players' fear of loss.

D&D's extensive combat rules tell me that the loss players fear is the loss of their character, significantly.

If you could flub a Persuasion check and get your character killed or permanently unplayable or something, we'd want a lot more rules around that check.

If you were immortal in combat, it'd probably be fine to just roll d20 + level to see how quickly you kill those goblins.

Fact is, a failed social encounter can sometimes be more fun than a successful one. There's usually very little to lose there.

Makes sense. I tend to run social encounters that will have a delayed impact. The players are never quite sure how the interaction went unless they roll/RP well or poorly. Not always, of course, but I tend to run a lot of faction play. My campaigns are intricate and nuanced. All this changes how social encounters are seen and played, IME.

 

[Malmuria]

re: long term campaigns

The idea of the "campaign" to my knowledge comes from the wargaming roots of the hobby. Gygax seemed to think of a campaign as such:

“It is reasonable to calculate that if a fair player takes part in 50 to 75 games in the course of a year he should acquire sufficient experience points to make him about 9th to 11th level, assuming that he manages to survive all that play...As BLACKMOOR is the only campaign with a life of five years, and GREYHAWK with a life of four is the second longest running campaign, the most able adventurers should not yet have attained 20th level except in the two named campaigns. To my certain knowledge no player in either BLACKMOOR or GREYHAWK has risen above 14th level.”

Moreover, each session was probably longer, taking up the larger portion of an entire weekend day. This idea has survived in trad games, where you might be playing with more or less the same characters using the same system for at least a year of weekly play (Horror on the Orient Express, etc).

My sense is that more recently-designed games have moved away from this model. Not that they are limited to one-shots, but also that they are not designed with slow, long term progression in mind, and instead think of "campaigns" as "seasons" (as for a tv show) or shorter arcs.