Idle Musings - D&D design scope

[Crazy Jerome]

Riffing off recent discussion in My HP Fix - Page 8 - EN World: Your Daily RPG Magazine, I'm going to assert a few things and see if they spark any interest:

D&D has always been a mix of process-sim, result-sim, gamist, and narrative mechanics. By that, I mean something vaguely analogous to Forge versions of simultation, gamism, and narrativism in pursuit of creative agendas, but not exactly. For example, in my usage, a gamist decision is simply one that produces a decision point in manipulating the odds using the game's mechanics, while a narrative one is the corresponding decision point in manipulating the fiction. Both simulation type mechanics run the other way, where you are finding out what happened rather than deciding.

This mix is a great strength of D&D, and accounts for a certain amount of its widespread appeal. It's also one of the things that drives people crazy.

D&D has also always been a mix of incompatible and incoherent abstractions. Unlike the various mechanics, I think this has largely been a negative--or at best, a "necessary evil." People have wanted incompatible things in the game, and the designers have tried to satisfy them. You could get away with a lot, because of the abstractions. For a long time, the designers tried to satisfy them with patter and fancy footwork. As the designers got more serious about really handling the issues, instead of hiding them, the incompatible desires have become more and more apparent. The Next modular approach is the only answer that solve this problem, except for people who think the patter and fancy footwork was sufficient. (Or more fairly, the modular approach is the only suggestion I've seen thus far capable of solving the problem.)

There's at least three strains of thought in the above. I'll wait to see if I get any bites before I bore you with elaboration.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

This sounds like an admission that a single game can't be all things to all people...unless it's actually (in some way) different games.

I think that's what 5e is trying to do with the modular approach. Two groups playing 5e with different modules might essentially be playing different games (or at least as different as two groups playing different editions).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

This sounds like an admission that a single game can't be all things to all people...unless it's actually (in some way) different games.

That's half of one implication. The other half of that same implication is that a game can be a lot of different things to a lot of people, but the boundaries that make it possible to be something for Persons A, B, C, and D, are necessarily going to exclude Persons E and F. Most of the friction over what is in and how it fits is either ignoring this necessity--or in full awareness of the necessity, trying to control who is A-D and who is E or F.

 

[Yora]

Lots of people appear to have made the experience that every group played a different game in AD&D all the time. 3rd Edition had the strong point of having a clear core system that can easily be customized since there are rules in what paths any new content can walk.
With 5th Edition, they are really just aknowledging the fact and using this knowledge to make the core system very flexible and customizable from the start.

 

[chaochou]

By that, I mean something vaguely analogous to Forge versions of simultation, gamism, and narrativism in pursuit of creative agendas, but not exactly.

I think you're entering a murky pool here, but I'm interested to see where it's going...

For example, in my usage, a gamist decision is simply one that produces a decision point in manipulating the odds using the game's mechanics, while a narrative one is the corresponding decision point in manipulating the fiction.

I understand saying this for the sake of simplicity. But already the arguments become extremely complex. Is 'fiction' simply the later retelling of events? In which case me making a cup of coffee produces fiction, its creation is trivial and all rpgs both produce and fully support manipulating it...

I think fiction, in a narrativist (and literary) sense, has conflict, rising tension, resolution, denouement. In D&D - and all rpgs which followed its model - the GM creates the conflict, ramps up the tension, sets the parameters for resolution and narrates the denouement. Its a ubiquitous paradigm in RPG design, and one that games specifically designed for 'narratavist' play break down by giving players the power to do any and all of those things.

In this context I don't see anything much in D&D (or Traveller, or Runequest, or Jorune or Warhammer FRP, etc, etc) which support narrativist play. I don't think there's a game written before about 2000 whose mechanics were designed like this (I hear Over the Edge did, but I've not read it), and not one before HeroWars or Dogs that did it well.

The caveat is the sandbox, which I think was a clear attempt to break out into new terrain. But I think D&D supports sandbox play largely through volume of source material, rather than mechanics, in much the same way that ICE did with Middle Earth even though the system (Rolemaster) is pretty much pure sim.

For a long time, the designers tried to satisfy them with patter and fancy footwork. As the designers got more serious about really handling the issues, instead of hiding them, the incompatible desires have become more and more apparent.

Yes, I agree entirely.

The Next modular approach is the only answer that solve this problem, except for people who think the patter and fancy footwork was sufficient.

Perhaps, but only if divergent playstyles are seen in these kind of terms. I don't see it. Look at the recent news item about what 'modules' respondents wanted... the answers were - combat, combat, combat, combat, recovering after combat and skills.

So theoretically, there could be a 'Beliefs, Instincts and Traits' module. But I think the designers assume (probably correctly) that you're already playing Burning Wheel.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I understand saying this for the sake of simplicity. But already the arguments become extremely complex. Is 'fiction' simply the later retelling of events? In which case me making a cup of coffee produces fiction, its creation is trivial and all rpgs both produce and fully support manipulating it...

I think fiction, in a narrativist (and literary) sense, has conflict, rising tension, resolution, denouement. In D&D - and all rpgs which followed its model - the GM creates the conflict, ramps up the tension, sets the parameters for resolution and narrates the denouement. Its a ubiquitous paradigm in RPG design, and one that games specifically designed for 'narratavist' play break down by giving players the power to do any and all of those things.

There's the narrative in the literary sense, which can be driven or emerge, from any number of factors, including those outside what I listed. For example, you or the DM could just make it up and narrate it, as pure free-form storytelling. Or something rarely if ever used, you could have a process that wasn't particularly geared to any coherent simulation, but then whatever emerges is the story: On your turn, roll a d6. On a 1 you fight a randomly determined monsters. On a 2 you find a treasure. And so forth.

Then there are mechanics that interact in particular ways. In my (admittedly idiosyncratic) terms, a narrative mechanic is one where the decision point resides in the fiction.

Probably the closest thing to that in D&D is the decision to use a major, limited resource--based strictly on character decision. If your mage lets loose his one and only fireball on a hoard of orcs, because it seemed like the most effective time for it, then that's a gamist decision ... using a game element for a game purpose. OTOH, if your mage looses his one and only fireball against two kobolds that smart-mouthed him, when the rest of the party were about to charge them and turn them into mince-meat, that's a narrative decision.

So yeah, technically that isn't a narrative mechanic in Forge terms, because it isn't designed to work that way, and doesn't encourage you to do it. So it might be more reasonable to say that D&D has always had a few mechanics that you could readily treat as little "n" narrative if you were so inclined. It doesn't help any that "metagaming" crosses the boundaries I'm trying to explore.


I'm probably better off dropping the Forge discussion altogether, but darn it, they've appropriated some of the most useful terms! However, since decision is the critical distinction, let's try it this way:

• Process-driven - follow the steps (process rules), and whatever emerges, happens.
• Result-driven - follow the rules, and you should get a result somewhere within the expected parameters.
• Rules-decision - make a choice that is intended to have the rules favor your desired course of action, so that you "win".
• Fiction-decision - make a choice that is intended to drive the results to something interesting.

Also, note that unlike other such breakdowns, I'm explicity making no claim of purity. Especially not in D&D, I think you switch from one to another in split seconds, sometimes in the same "action".

You decide to pull out a weapon and attack the bandit because you learned that he robbed your friend. You pull out the magic dagger because he has a strange glowing aura, and you don't think you have time to get in a shot with your longbow. It comes time to attack, you follow the process of attacking to find out whether or not you hit. All the magic, feats, etc. that make you good with the dagger mean that the results are something you can predict, but you roll damage to find out if you scratched, hurt, or killed him.

Perhaps, but only if divergent playstyles are seen in these kind of terms. I don't see it. Look at the recent news item about what 'modules' respondents wanted... the answers were - combat, combat, combat, combat, recovering after combat and skills.

Right. Would have been better if I had said more clearly that the Next modular approach is the only approach capable of solving this issue. Doesn't mean that the Next implementation will solve it.

 

[Campbell]

So theoretically, there could be a 'Beliefs, Instincts and Traits' module. .

Want this. I like peanut butter with my chocolate.

 

[chaochou]

I'm probably better off dropping the Forge discussion altogether, but darn it, they've appropriated some of the most useful terms! However, since decision is the critical distinction, let's try it this way:

• Process-driven - follow the steps (process rules), and whatever emerges, happens.
• Result-driven - follow the rules, and you should get a result somewhere within the expected parameters.
• Rules-decision - make a choice that is intended to have the rules favor your desired course of action, so that you "win".
• Fiction-decision - make a choice that is intended to drive the results to something interesting.

Also, note that unlike other such breakdowns, I'm explicity making no claim of purity. Especially not in D&D, I think you switch from one to another in split seconds, sometimes in the same "action".

That's an interesting way to break things down. Do you have a theory regarding how these might be applied to 5e? Or how modules can supply either based on the same core 'chassis'?

 

[Greg K]

I don't think there's a game written before about 2000 whose mechanics were designed like this (I hear Over the Edge did, but I've not read it), and not one before HeroWars or Dogs that did it well.

I don't know if they would fit what you are talking about by narrativst rather than sim, but Barony (a.k.a Conrad's Fantasy/Rogue Swords of the Empire), Crimson Cutlass, and Avengers of Justice ("Good Guys Finish Last" and "Villains Finish First") all by Better Games might fit the bill. These were free form role playing games that have been described as rpgs built as if they evolved from non-rpg roots.

Jim Pinto wrote that Better Games "produced four striking RPGs, albeit the sci-fi game (Battle Born) was just another version of their FANTASY game. Barony, Crimson Cutlass, and Good Guys Finish Last may be a decade ahead of their time. And as a result, died early deaths." "if you ever get a chance, sit down and play some of the best games that while they didn't directly affect the present movement of indie games, certainly paved the way." (Jim Pinto at Story-games.com in 2011
")


Crimson Cutlass: Regarding this game Jim Pinto wrote: "Finally. There was Crimson Cutlass. The pinnacle of pirate rpgs with an entire book of tarot-card related references to events and intrigue played out over the course of ANY adventure you design." "Crimson Cutlass remains the only pirate game worth playing (that's right, I worked on 7th Sea and I'm still saying that). It came in three books, one of which was for resolving story threads and forks. It used a tarot deck for success, which was keyed against player aspects like "swimming" or "captaining." It drew heavily from the Tales of the Arabian Nights board game or vice versa. And because of the book design, you could play without a GM (not that the designers considered this) or rotated the GM around the table so players could take turns steering the adventure (just like Inspectres).

Good Guys Finish Last: Good Guys Finish Last which was one of two games making up Avengers of Justice, Jim Pinto wrote, "Good Guys Finish Last" is now and will always be the best super hero game ever made. If you could find a way to make it GMless, it would be the single best RPG ever made." When asked to elaborate, he wrote:
"Good Guys Finished Last was an innovative comic book emulator. The players were writers and editors of the comic, as well as the characters in the story.
The grid of powers was innovative too. You had some 8 or 10 power groups to choose from (Chemical, Electrical, Power, etc.) and you would cross-reference those to create vague power descriptions (Chemical + Ballistic meant doing Lethal Chemical damage at Range). Depending on the campaign, you would select 2, 3, or 4 groups as your starting power level and experience points would increase your power in a given area. Granted the game was long before "framing scenes" but the innovative initiative system was designed for conflict resolution, even though that wasn't a term yet."


Advancement in these games was done via earning various Ignobles.(Adventure, Bard's Tale, Battle, Crafty Deeds, Desires Fulfilled, Exercising Prudence, Growth, Heroics, and Magical Events) in play. Earning these Ignobles allowed you to enter new exit paths (kind of like how Warhammer Fantasy FRP has career Paths) with each path having its own pre-requisites.

Jonathan Tweet stated that, in 4e, they were trying to make a game that was free-form like Conrad's Fantasy/ Rogue Swords of the Empire.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm going to assert a few things and see if they spark any interest:

D&D has always been a mix of process-sim, result-sim, gamist, and narrative mechanics. By that, I mean something vaguely analogous to Forge versions of simultation, gamism, and narrativism in pursuit of creative agendas, but not exactly.

Sounds messy. Perhaps part of what's going on is that folks are projecting their preferences onto the game. Take hps, for example. There are people arguing over the hp rules, some claiming they simulate real wounds, others that the /exact same mechanics/ are a model of narrative 'plot armor.

This mix is a great strength of D&D, and accounts for a certain amount of its widespread appeal. It's also one of the things that drives people crazy.

Or, maybe we're attracted to it because we're already crazy? Seriously, though, D&D was the first RPG and has been the most widely-played and commercially successful RPG for most of the hobby's history. We have little choice but to try to get what we want out of D&D, since it's easiest to find a D&D game or get together a group to play D&D, because of it's long history and name recognition - not because it actually has what we want in it.

That's one reason 5e's "something for everyone" approach makes some sense - when there was nothing else, everyone tried to beat D&D into a shape they liked, even when other things came along, well, D&D was familiar, and you'd beaten into a shape you liked... So you stick with it. Then they roll a rev on you... :sigh: