Well, that would be Basic Roleplaying.
Just about the same degree of flexibility is exhibited by RuneQuest.
Indie Games Are Not More Focused. They Are Differently Focused.
Just about the same degree of flexibility is exhibited by RuneQuest.
Because I still don't really grasp the measure of flexibility, I don't know how I would rank these two systems. But it seems to me there's something that B (let's call it Apocalypse World) does that A (let's call it 5e D&D) doesn't: it obviates the need for anyone to decide the broad structure of what happens next. The results of a dice roll tells us whether what happens next thwarts, in part conforms to, or in large part conforms to, what the character was hoping for.
Whereas here's my take on A:
* There are a couple of skills you could use and so someone is responsible for adding narrative to the situation to decide which skill is used - depending on further details about likely differences of success based on which skill, and what the cost is of failing as opposed to succeeding, there is the potential here for significant conflict between participants (Burning Wheel has mechanisms that are part of the system that are intended to blunt these sorts of conflicts; I don't know of any in D&D);
* Circumstances and approach could mean that you either just get the info, just don't, or have to make a check means that someone has to decide how the information is related to or implicit in the circumstances, and how the information so considered relates to the approach adopted, and maybe meta-considerations like pacing etc, in order to call for a check. The contrast with a system which frames the need for a check in terms of is anything that matters to the character at stake is clear.
What A seems to offer is a situation in which one participant - the GM - has a very strong role in deciding what happens next, and that the main method for integrating other participants' opinions on that is via negotiation and consensus.
I'm not sure what you mean by force. In my experience, a game can cause a participant to feel things, in something like the same way that watching a film or reading a book or listening to a song can cause a person to feel things.
There's no guarantee that everyone will find a given comedy film funny; but there are things that can be done, in the making of the film, to increase the prospects of the intended audience finding it funny.
In RPGing, I think there are things that can be done to increase the likelihood that playing the game will cause participants to feel certain things. These aren't limited to asking you to roleplay a certain stipulated mental state. For instance, Burning Wheel has various "fate points" that are accrued by evincing one's character in certain ways (roughly, by playing to or against Beliefs, Traits and Instincts) which can then be expended to improve the chances of success on checks. Some of them are also the buffer against PC death. And the basic principle of framing and check is always frame towards conflict (given PC Beliefs, Traits and Instincts) and say 'yes' if nothing relevant to PC Beliefs, Traits and Instincts is at stake; otherwise call for a check. So engaging with the action resolution system also means making choices about how hard to try, even if that means risking character death, in circumstances where the character's core being and commitments are on the line.
This is not the same as being asked to roleplay a mental state. It's nothing like your character is happy - portray that through you narration and action declarations! It's you - as your character - have this choice to make - now how do you choose? I think this is (at least in part) what @Campbell is pointing to in contrasting playing the fiction with improv storytelling; and also what is prompting his remarks about what social/table constraints are present. In order for Burning Wheel play to be viable, there has to be permission at the table to make those choices without concern about how they will affect "the story" or even the immediate situation conceived from a god's eye perspective.
A RPG can grant that permission in part via the social norms it establishes in its rulebook; but also via its action resolution system. For instance, one source of those permissions in Burning Wheel play is that other players can - via their PCs - intervene in the behaviour of a PC, by calling for a Duel of Wits to resolve their PC's attempt to talk down another player's PC. This structure of possibilities means that no one ever has to step outside the perspective of their character and ask, from that god's eye perspective, What would be good for the game?
I did read your previous post, after making mine.
One (minor) thought I had was that D&D is being used very capaciously, to include HotFW lifepath PC generation, and other non-canonical methods.
Another (more major) thought I had related to this bit:
From this, it's very unclear how difficulties are being established - is it easy or hard to bribe the guard? it it easy or hard to bring the officer to your side with a kiss? etc - and also how consequences are being established.doctorbadwolf said:
And a final thought is that, if you're playing Burning Wheel or Prince Valiant but using d20 vs target number rather than dice pool vs target number, isn't this showing that those systems are flexible? That their basic gameplay survives a change of dice mechanic?
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
And obviating the need for such a determination limits flexibility. There are payoffs for doing so, but I’ve always said that pbta games are good and have advantages over D&D. I just don’t think flexibility is on the list. (And I’m still flummoxed as to how saying this could possibly be insulting to those games)
It’s up to the “dm” in theory, but in practice it is up to the group. It’s a conversation, and one participant is the mechanics. How the game is run is a matter of consensus and consent, by virtue of being a voluntary group activity.
You can modify that even further of course, but we leave behind relevance to the game’s flexibility when we turn the DC ladder into a success ladder.
Quick tangent: My point in another post was that you can achieve this in games where the process comes from mechanics and one where the process comes from the process of play. Mechanization is just a preference some folks have.
And making the gears and levers of that too transparent to the viewer can backfire.
Right. What I am saying is that this is a preference difference, not particularly relevant to flexibility.
I also just don’t ever need the mechanics to push me toward or mechanically enforce an emotional response, because when my character Dresden was in a situation recently that caused his trauma to make his decision making get bypassed by impulse/trauma response/hormonal overload of the brain, I felt my muscles twitch and my heart rate change and knew what he did in that moment. I don’t need mechanics to try to make me feel that way, I know all too well what losing volition in the face of trauma response feels like. I don’t need to repeat the experience in theme park mode.
And you can do that with the play process and what you encourage during and before play, etc. That’s my point when I say that D&D can do the same things, with or without added mechanical systems.
IME, vanishingly few people play D&D purely as written. Including optional systems from another edition of D&D is…not exactly radical.
So, it’s up to the players who aren’t the one bribing or kissing, in conversation with the “acting” player.
I don’t know where this is coming from. Can you explain?
hawkeyefan
Legend
I wasn't comparing D&D to a specific game. What I was saying is that if you remove combat from the game, what's left isn't really enough to be very good at anything.
You seem to be describing a flexible system as one that can accommodate being changed to suit....and I can understand that. But is that the only way a game could be flexible?
What if a game had mechanics that made court intrigue play in as engaging and compelling a way as combat? What if a game was able to take the removal of combat in stride because what remained was still robust enough to handle the desired play experience?
D&D's core mechanic of "roll a d20, add modifiers, beat a target number" may be suitable for many things. But once you move beyond that core mechanic, there is very little D&D offers for anything other than combat.
That to me, does not seem all that flexible. It seems pretty clear that D&D is designed primarily for combat.
Yes, of course. Different people have different tastes and preferences. I don't think anyone is really claiming that any one game is more flexible than another besides you. Most of the rest of us seem to be arguing that other games are at least no less flexible than D&D.
Well you're combining different thoughts from different posters. But I don't think the above need to be mutually exclusive.
I don't think it would be extremely controversial to say "D&D is very focused on combat, and its social interaction rules are so loose that they aren't engaging at all."
I'm not saying that social rules need established DCs for everything, or that any possible action needs to be defined and codified. I'm saying having some rules in place can help players know what's possible and what they can try. Or to have general actions or categories of actions that can accommodate many kinds of actions....like Moves in Apocalypse World.....can really promote creative play. Outcomes that are known, targets/DCs that are known.....all those kind of player facing elements serve to inform players of what kinds of things they can accomplish.
Yeah, that's why I specifically said "scene and genre appropriate"; that's a given. However, if I'm playing a character in a charged social situation....like, things could go bad if I don't handle it right......D&D does very little to help the player out. It unloads everything onto the GM. They decide if a course of action is possible. They determine the information available in the scene to inform the player of the situation, and the likelihood of their action succeeding or not. They set the DC. They determine the consequence of failure. They determine what's achieved on success. They decide if any of these things are shared in any way with the player before the roll is made.
Apply that same approach to combat. Imagine if instead of following the processes of combat in D&D....honoring initiative and allowing PCs the proper number of actions and allowing attacks against static ACs and rolling damage on a hit, or no damage on a miss.....the GM just kind of decided all that in the moment. No one would advocate for this combat system.
Now, that's fine. I play D&D 5E quite a bit. My group and I all have a good time because the game is primarily about fighting things.
And we can get the game to kind of do what we'd like by changing up some rules or processes here and there. I don't think that's a mark in the game's favor as far as flexibility goes so much as it is a comment that a group of players who know each other well and are familiar with RPGs and with this game specifically can kind of nudge (or in some cases violently shove) it toward their desired experience.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
But some games are more flexible than others. It’s extremely weird to me that that statement is controversial.
It’s be nice if any of y’all would explain what you mean by flexible. I’ve provided a definition and done what I can to explain how I’m using it, but I still don’t know how you could be using it, if a game that prescribes action and reaction with “if, then” mechanics is as flexible as a game where “what happens next” is mostly a conversation between participants, with a single simple mechanic for determine the outcome of actions whose success is questionable.
So does knowing your group.
I would. Because it would be a conversation, like I said in reply to someone else. D&D’s Basic gameplay is a conversation in which the mechanics are one participant. I would like D&D combat to be less structured, frankly. Not as unstructured as the social game, but a bit less than it is.
I think you should try to find a game of D&D with some folks who don’t play it as primarily about combat, and to be fair, I am going to try to find a group to run some games I am only somewhat familiar with, keeping what you’ve said in mind.
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
Fundamentally I disagree that you can get the same experience from a game without meaningful teeth to its mechanics that you can from one that has real teeth, real consequences to it. There is a social freedom to be found in a disciplined approach to play (and life).
At the end of the day I don't think the more structured approach that D&D takes to combat is inherently less flexible than the approach it takes to everything else because a structured approach provides for play experiences one cannot get from less structured play. I don't really think the less structured approach that Blades in the Dark takes to combat fundamentally makes it more flexible than the one D&D takes. I don't get anything like carefully planning out my turns in D&D from the less structured combat in Blades.
What I generally reject is the idea that desire is enough. That we can just do things magically without regard for the social environment that a particular set of play procedures and game mechanics have on player behavior. I know because I have seen it in my own behavior and that of the people I have played with playing multiple games.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me. We all have wildly different experiences and play priorities (many that we smuggle in regardless of the game). Mostly I was expressing frustration with what feels like an attempt to put my play in a box. Calling it narrow. Saying games I know have a lot of life and variety are bespoke curated experiences. I mean I know that my approach to Blades in the Dark is phenomenally different from the way @Manbearcat approaches it based on conversations we have had.
At the end of the day I don't think the more structured approach that D&D takes to combat is inherently less flexible than the approach it takes to everything else because a structured approach provides for play experiences one cannot get from less structured play. I don't really think the less structured approach that Blades in the Dark takes to combat fundamentally makes it more flexible than the one D&D takes. I don't get anything like carefully planning out my turns in D&D from the less structured combat in Blades.
What I generally reject is the idea that desire is enough. That we can just do things magically without regard for the social environment that a particular set of play procedures and game mechanics have on player behavior. I know because I have seen it in my own behavior and that of the people I have played with playing multiple games.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me. We all have wildly different experiences and play priorities (many that we smuggle in regardless of the game). Mostly I was expressing frustration with what feels like an attempt to put my play in a box. Calling it narrow. Saying games I know have a lot of life and variety are bespoke curated experiences. I mean I know that my approach to Blades in the Dark is phenomenally different from the way @Manbearcat approaches it based on conversations we have had.
aramis erak
Legend
In other words, (IIUC) the reason there are so many different rulesets is that, indeed, rules matter to the play experience. A stance I share.
If the premise is that D&D offers great flexibility for a GM to railroad players through their script, I would agree. It contains pretty much nothing to prevent such activity, unlike PbTA, Blades and other games (Sorcerer, Burning Wheel, HeroWars etc) which will actively fight such attempts.
I don't consider GM flexibility to run illusionist games or games which offer players only the most superficial input into the content and direction of play to be a boon.
But the thread was actually about 'focus' - and the focus of D&D is what the GM says. As a player I find this inescapable focus on the GM and their conception of some tedious 'setting' or 'plot' or 'adventure' to be a dull and disempowered experience.
I don't consider GM flexibility to run illusionist games or games which offer players only the most superficial input into the content and direction of play to be a boon.
But the thread was actually about 'focus' - and the focus of D&D is what the GM says. As a player I find this inescapable focus on the GM and their conception of some tedious 'setting' or 'plot' or 'adventure' to be a dull and disempowered experience.
hawkeyefan
Legend
I don't think that's controversial. I think it's a subjective matter, and so your specific stance that D&D is more flexible than "indie games", a potentially very broad category of games, is what's controversial.
Different people are discussing this in different ways. I think that's also part of the problem; what it means for a game to be flexible may be different things to different people. Hell, I'd say that it can mean different things to just one person.....I can see many ways in which we may classify a game as being flexible.
Sure, but that goes to the social element mentioned earlier. What if you're playing with a new group? Let's say an online game or a game at a store or convention. In those cases, you can't lean on knowing the participants well and being able to anticipate what they'll like or what they expect nearly as much as you can with your home game. So what you have to rely on in those cases is what the game provides, both rules and advice.
I really don't need to do that. I play D&D because I enjoy the combat element. If I wanted a game that was not about combat, I would play a different game.
Could I get D&D to work without combat by adding a bunch of rules or changing the ones that exist, and restructuring everything? I'd say almost definitely. But why? What's to gain by that when I can instead just select another game that will do what I want it to do without needing all those changes?
How a game is run is always a matter of consensus. When I play Uno with my daughter we have to negotiate what rules will apply, because she has various idiosyncratic house rules she picks up from her school friends that I find annoying.
But the actual play of the game doesn't depend on consensus - we follow the rules of play as agreed.
Because there are multiple editions of Burning Wheel, plus the possibility of house rules and tweaks, playing a game of BW depends on consensus. Eg on the weekend, when my friend and I were building PCs for a new campaign, we had to decide which version of the root stats for Martial Arts skill to use: the Revised version or the Gold version. (We went for Gold.)
But that is different from the actual gameplay depending on consensus. Sometimes it did: for instance, we agreed by consensus that the game would start in Hardby. But sometimes it didn't: for instance, when my friend had to roll tax checks following his PC's casting of spells, we applied the rules for tax, which at one point meant that my friend's PC fell unconscious. Which then meant that my PC was able to take all the money we were in the process of taking from an innkeeper.
As I've said upthread, I don't know what the measure of flexibility is supposed to be. But I would think of flexibility as ranging over such dimensions as the fiction - genre, theme, etc - and the play dynamics - eg how is fiction established, how are consequences and what happens next worked out - and participant roles. These various dimensions are not fully independent - eg some play dynamics might better suit some thematic content, such as I suggested above discussing BW.
The fact that a system uses consensus as its action resolution procedure doesn't seem to me to make it particularly flexible in any of the dimensions I've identified: it doesn't change the scope of genre or theme that can be addressed; it is one particular play dynamic; and it is pushes towards one particular approach to participant roles (ie everyone's role is in helping establish and support the consensus).
It seems to me that if what one is taking from D&D is the barest basics of PC build (6 stats, skills and proficiency bonus) and action resolution (roll d20, add the appropriate stat and proficiency bonus, equal or exceed a target number); but is using processes of play that are not set out in any D&D text but are set out in other RPG texts; then it seems just as plausible to locate the flexibility in those other systems - they are able to incorporate those basic D&D elements into their processes - rather than locating it in D&D.
I took @hawkeyefan to be making a similar point with his remark upthread about CoC: it seems as much as D&D's PC build and resolution basics, the CoC build and resolution basic might be slotted into the sorts of processes of play you have described yourself adopting.
