D&D 5E Heteroglossia and D&D: Why D&D Speaks in a Multiplicity of Playing Styles

[FrogReaver]

@FrogReaver

There's a Changing the game section in Blades from p. 229-235 that discusses expanding the scope of the game, tweaking how stuff works and mechanics for special narrative situations. Some of the changes include changing how Tier works, changing how Resistance works, playing vigilantes rather than criminals, rules for journeys and stuff like joining a cult or becoming bound to a demon.

Things like rituals, inventions, et al are entirely negotiated and designed by the play group as a matter of general play. Like there's one example ritual.

There are also all sort of expansions available to play that change the scope of the game including playing cops, vigilantes, secret police, etc that fundamentally change how stuff like heat works.

Generally this is encouraged to by an exercise the whole group is involved in and treated as an act of game design, but that's also how I treat house rules in D&D.

Here's the opening text to Changing the Game:

Seems fairly robust. I did notice the specific omission of play principles and gm/player advice there. I also didn't see suggestions on changing the setting. But still really robust and far reaching advice, though maybe a slightly lower scope than D&D's anything goes.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Seems fairly robust. I did notice the specific omission of play principles and gm/player advice there. I also didn't see suggestions on changing the setting. But still really robust and far reaching advice, though maybe a slightly lower scope than D&D's anything goes.

I’m currently running a game called The 13th Fleet. It both removes Position/Effect from play and takes place in an entirely different setting than Blades.

You’re starting with your conclusion that D&D is more flexible than other games and then doing everything you can to support that conclusion. Despite evidence to the contrary.

The Changing the Game section makes it very clear that nothing is off the table.

There’s nothing greater about the flexibility of D&D.

 

[FrogReaver]

I’m currently running a game called The 13th Fleet. It both removes Position/Effect from play and takes place in an entirely different setting than Blades.

Maybe elaborate on how a 'not Blades in the Dark game' shows that "Blades in the Dark' is more flexible? Maybe it does, but it's not clear at the moment why that is the case?

You’re starting with your conclusion that D&D is more flexible than other games and then doing everything you can to support that conclusion. Despite evidence to the contrary.

I assure you I am not doing this and I would appreciate that you not accuse me of bad faith.

The Changing the Game section makes it very clear that nothing is off the table.

There’s nothing greater about the flexibility of D&D.

I just read it and don't see that. Maybe you can point to something specific there?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Here's a few general question:

Let's say I run a game of D&D where for 6 sessions in a row we are engaging in fancy parties, social encounters and interpersonal drama. That counts as D&D even though the rules might impact play once or twice a session (other than basic play loop stuff) ?

"Counts as" is doing some heavy lifting in that sentence. You can say "yes" because its embedded in a D&D campaign and probably uses the D&D setting assumptions, but when viewed as just its own slice, the question is "is there anything telling you anything about the game system at all?"

Let's say I run a game of Monsterhearts where the characters are doing Teen Wolf / Vampire Diaries action adventure stuff for a couple sessions where there's tons of exploring the environment, sneaking into enemy compounds and much violence. Basic moves only matter once or twice a session (although the basic play loop and principles are being observed). How is this still not Monsterhearts?

This is a case where, even though I read Monsterhearts 1e once or twice, so I'd need to ask some questions: how were potential conflicts being resolved? I recall that incarnation of PbtA had some moves to represent violence (because, honestly, there's no lack of that in the style of media its based on), but I don't recall what it had to handle the sneaking-and-exploring part. How does it do so? My inclination is to say that its still Monsterhearts because that sort of thing isn't particularly uncommon in the source material involved, but I'm not sure how well the rule system supports it.

Why are the standards different for different games on this score?
Why are house rules in D&D treated differently than special permissions in Blades, custom moves in Apocalypse World, changing the game or other ways to customize games when games explicitly talk about these things and how to do them?

Well, as you know, my opinion is fundamentally they aren't, though how often you need to do them and to what degree matters, and how much the additional material seems outside the normal mechanical scope; though its not a hard-line, I think there is "houseruled X" and there's "game based on X that is really a new game". And it usually has to do with mechanical structures you'd not see a parallel in X.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Maybe elaborate on how a 'not Blades in the Dark game' shows that "Blades in the Dark' is more flexible? Maybe it does, but it's not clear at the moment why that is the case?

The 13th Fleet is a Forged in the Dark game that does exactly the things you said the “Changing the game” section omitted.

I assure you I am not doing this and I would appreciate that you not accuse me of bad faith.

Your comments have done nothing to show how D&D is more flexible than Blades in the Dark. Yet you claim it’s true. When someone else pointed it out, you said it was the fault of others for not explaining the text in full.

If you’re going to claim that D&D is more flexible than another game, then it’s on you to show how. No one else is gonna do your work for you.

As for the flexibility of either game…I don’t know how either game is “more flexible” than the other given the context of changing the game. How would either game not be changeable?

I just read it and don't see that. Maybe you can point to something specific there?

Just read what? The entire section in the book or just the bit that @Campbell quoted? I feel like if you read the whole section I don’t think you can walk away with the feeling that any particular part of the game is untouchable in this regard.

Given how undefined the setting for Blades is, I’m struggling to imagine how anyone could read the text and think of anything about the game as beyond personalization or customization.

 

[Campbell]

@Thomas Shey

The way Monsterhearts and Apocalypse World both work is that when no basic move applies than the GM makes a move that follows from the fiction. Basically the GM decided what happens in a way that is consistent with the game's agenda and principles. A decent portion of the game will be like this.

If something comes up often enough you are encouraged to build custom moves that fit the theme of the game. You can also do situation specific custom moves on the fly if it makes sense. Custom moves that apply in specific situations are a big part of running AW and Monsterhearts.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Perhaps this thread should be moved to RPG General, with all this talk having moved to non-D&D games.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Perhaps this thread should be moved to RPG General, with all this talk having moved to non-D&D games.

Perhaps the more interesting question is how is it that a threat that is marked D&D 5e, in the D&D section, with D&D in the title, and discussing D&D and a theory about D&D in the OP…. has so much talk about non-D&D?

Actually, that’s not a very interesting question, is it? Pretty pretty pretty predictable.

 

[Campbell]

Perhaps this thread should be moved to RPG General, with all this talk having moved to non-D&D games.

Speaking generally I think threads that seek to compare D&D to other games belong in General RPG.

 

[FrogReaver]

Perhaps the more interesting question is how is it that a threat that is marked D&D 5e, in the D&D section, with D&D in the title, and discussing D&D and a theory about D&D in the OP…. has so much talk about non-D&D?

Actually, that’s not a very interesting question, is it? Pretty pretty pretty predictable.

Let's not explore that. I feel I'm just as much to blame