Indie Games Are Not More Focused. They Are Differently Focused.

[Aldarc]

For all of 5e's books full of procedures and subsystems and whatnot, at its heart there is really no structure at all. We call these things games by convention, but I am a little dubious.

The game is about going through the motions with the GM as if there was a procedure until the actual part of the game with procedures begins: i.e., combat.

 

[Manbearcat]

Alright, this thread has gotten well and far away from me, but let me address this last bit to me. Probably won't get back into this thread again until next week.

I have not and will not read or engage with a section of a post where you start by telling me what I’m talking about. If you didn’t intend to try to tell me my own mind, feel free to rephrase and I’ll take a look.

So let start from the bottom and break this out.

I don't understand why you're taking offense here (and I definitely don't understand the escalation of the offense taken). What I was saying in my post is that the inference I was drawing from the relationship of our two posts is that you were relating the salient aspects of what I was just writing about (having a cognitive state being thrust upon you or being mundanely afflicted with something that you would otherwise not wish to have had thrust upon you/been afflicted with) to how perception/insight/awareness is systemitized in a game.

Then I just went on to write about how there is a rift between these two things.

But if your second part was wholly disconnected from my first part and you were pivoting the conversation to just ask me to contrast those two designs, that is an entirely different thing.

I’m aware that this is what you’re talking about. When responding to it, I am also talking about it. It is possible to just..do that, when a thing happens that would result in that. A game literally cannot force you to be afraid, or experience despair, or feel anything at all. You buy in or it doesn’t happen, regardless of system. All a game can do is force you character to adopt a mental state, and ask you to roleplay that.

All of my posting should make it clear that I don't believe that "immersion" (or the loss of it) is an objective outgrowth of any design. Immersion is a personal thing and I don't see any use in discussing it in game design. So I want reiterate that again.

However, as creatures with highly evolved neuroendocrine systems, we absolutely can be "stimulated by proxy" (let's call it) that creates a kindred (not remotely exact, but kindred) cognitive space to the Real McCoy. A trivial example of this is the Jenga Tower in Dread as action resolution to inculcate the table's participants with the desperation and anxiety and sense of growing loss of volition that is fundamental to that horror genre. Whether someone doesn't want those feelings or not is not relevant to the point. But the reality is, that systemization is entirely different from D&D's robust heroes rolling D&D action resolution and cosplaying desperation and anxiety and a sense of growing loss of volition. Merely adding a Sanity mechanic doesn't bridge that gap. It does some work, but (a) its not holistically integrated into the system as a whole (there are still far too many ways for D&D heroes to marshal resources to wrest control of the trajectory of play from the spiral), (b) the genre that it is nested within (action/adventure with profoundly capable/robust heroes) is fundamental to play and cannot be stripped from it (in part because of (a) prior), and (c) the visual cue of the failing geometry of a progressively destabilized Jenga Tower just hooks into our OODA Loop profoundly more viscerally than roll dice > mark San (because our evolution from chimps on East African Savannah fighting big cats depended upon these visual cues prompting our endocrine system and developing heuristics for problem solving).

Its a brilliant mechanic. You can drawback from there and look at all kinds of other instantiations of mechanics and why they're good at doing a particular thing.

Playing high stakes poker absolutely creates a very cultivated cognitive space. There is vulnerability, there is marshaling courage, there is inventorying and acting upon the past, there is marshaling that inventorying/acting upon the past as a resource, there deciding when to escalate, when to cut your losses, and when this is the hill you're prepared to die upon.

And just like when you read a book and you get hooked into a character's plight right off the bat...that is what Dogs (a) character creation + (b) the visceralness of the experience of the brutal (you have a very good chance to lose given the arrayed resources against you) player-authored kicker (player decides the conflict/antagonism and GM plays the antagonism) scene that you resolve (to resolve a seminal moment of your character's backstory and finalize your PC) is meant to do (and pretty much uniformly does except for the most passive Participationist-like players out there...but they shouldn't be playing Dogs because its not a passive experience).

You're drawn in to the fullness of this character's multi-faceted thematic plight right off the bat. And now you're about to be put into an endless succession of Poker games where you are doing all of the things I mentioned above...and the result of that is going to be your character eroding out from under you (even if you remain a stalwart defender of The Faith rather than retire).

Mechanics that lead to a particular type of tension are great, if everyone buys in. I hope you won’t claim that Dogs In The Vineyard is a super versatile and flexible game because it does this? Hell, Call of Cthulhu engenders a certainly hopelessness by way of every move you take making you less capable (simplification, obv), but by doing so it makes it harder to tell stories with that game that aren’t the type of story it is built to tell. That isn’t a bad thing, which is why I don’t understand why some folks get bent when someone says that some games are less flexible than others, or that purpose built games like DiTV or CoC are less flexible as written than D&D 5e.

No, Dogs and Dread and My Life With Master are not flexible games. Although, Dogs is way more flexible than its given credit for. You can trivially drift it to be a general police game or a Star Wars game in an era where the Jedi are deeply reduced in numbers and the forces of the Dark Side are everywhere.

But they do things (put you into a particular cognitive + thematic space) that other games fundamentally cannot do. I mean, other instantiations of this kind of stuff can do some work...but they don't get there. Full disclosure, I have yet to run the Alien game. That game may do similar work to Dread from what I hear.

So, sum total, I think I disagree with almost everyone in here to one degree or another. This is my position:

1) Some designs are profoundly focused and they offer a cognitive experience or cognitive + thematic experience that other designs (more muted and/or less holistically integrated and/or nested with different genre trappings and/or more contingent up GM decides as the resolution engine) can't hope to derive.

2) Some designs are extraordinarily flexible in being able to detach genre + cognitive space + thematics and couple different ones (at a holistic level...there aren't niggling bits of design problems lurking downstream that you have to tangle with later). I mean Crane's base engine of BW and evolution gives you seriously different play in Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, and Torchbearer. Apocalypse World's design and the Forged in the Dark design that works off of it (concentric ring integration where you can trivially pull one ring out and have it not have dozens of downstream effects that you have to design around/against when you plan to iterate something new) are both amazingly flexible. Cortex+ is similar here (Smallville and Leverage and MHRP are not remotely the same and the Hacker's Guide shows you how you can get an abundance of other opportunities for other play).

 

[Sithlord]

Well, yes, you pointed out that you and another person used a random dungeon generator and then swapped off DMing. We fooled with this way back in about 1979 using the 1e DMG RDG. It works, but it is a pretty narrow definition of 'without preparation'.

The problem with playing D&D without preparation is, what are you playing? The GM already presents all the material and adjudicates everything. So the main way that the players have ANY role in what goes on whatsoever is that the environment is predefined (by the GM or some module writer, whatever). This means when the players say "We go north!" the GM is at least constrained to relate the predefined information related to 'north'. That gives the players SOME traction, and to the degree that the GM happens to provide them with information about what is in each direction, they gain SOME agency.

As soon as preparation is out the window, there is literally no agency left to the players whatsoever! I mean, they can regain some very limited scope of 'tactical agency' by virtue of the fact that the GM is obliged to describe what they see right around them at the time they set foot in a location, and thus they might make some meaningful choices about what to do there, assuming nothing 'hidden' is invoked by the GM during that scene.

This is WHY the RDG was created, because it is the ONLY WAY to produce that function of the GM, besides having one! Technically another way would be to play a module. The problem there being of course that modules pretty much assume that the knowledge held by the players is a more limited quantity than that held by the GM, so all the 'mystery' (puzzles, etc.) will get spoiled. Again, the RDG fixes that issue, at the cost of a rather restricted and fairly repetitive and often nonsensical environment.

Contrast this with Dungeon World, in which the GM is literally told he shall not create a complete map! Instead he's supposed to create NOTHING until he's had 'Session 0' with the players and they've established some basic thematic choices and setting through a process of the GM ASKING THEM QUESTIONS. The answer are BINDING on all participants BTW! You really COULD play DW without a fixed GM and play the 'full game'. It would require some conventions of play and logistics, but I'm pretty sure it would be viable if done right.

I love DW, but that is one of the worse written rule books out there. I would definitely recommend learning it from someone else.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I was thinking more about how the score stuff feels, with flashbacks, the dynamics of the stress system in play, the... footing? You know the mechanic you do at the beginning of every score that influences whether they're already on the backfoot. It strikes me as something you could do, but BITD's play process would potentially work against the feeling you're trying to achieve.

But I guess that gets into the nebulous weeds of what you get from mechanics, and I've had disconnects that seem to come down to differences in how the texture of play is percieved. For me, the texture of the mechanics seem to do a lot more work in Story Now, which seems like a good thing, but its kinda a double edged sword, stronger game feel at the core mechanics of the game can be overpowering when you're deliberately working against them.

In a sense something like pf2e's core is less concerned with evoking a specific theme, but instead all of the content layered on top of it evokes that feel, so its very easy to curate because the ststem's skeleton is neutral to what you're trying to do.

To put it in another way, the mechanical texture is in how a class feature or feat works instead of at the game's core. So this means a class can be given a mechanical system like stress, or spell slots, or pursue a lead, to evoke a specific feel, but it still interacts with the game's core mechanic that everyone else interacts with.

To summarize, the texture of the score is non optional in BITD, but its Pathfinder equivalent would be a modular piece that you could use or not use where apropo. I'd go so far as to say, that if Forged in the Dark were designed to be played in its own right rather than as a design basis, it would be an apt comparison to the level of mechanical texture present in 5e or PF's core mechanic.

They all still do some texture work, but less than the fully realized FITD game like Torchbearer or BITD woulf... or a specific AP with supporting mechanics or a well curated homebrew that employs the right subsystems and options for its experience.

Meh, my experience with traditional 'framework systems' like GURPS, BRP, d20, d6, and what I get from Cypher System (just from reading) is they don't really manage any of this very well. The 'core' has a very strong effect on the sort of flavor that you can achieve, regardless of grafting on any ancillary subsystems to do X, Y, or Z. EVERY GURPS game is GURPS, and then some added stuff. EVERY d20 or d20 Modern game is d20(Modern) with some added stuff, etc. The problem is, everything contributes to how a game's texture feels in play. It all contributes to how and what the players are going to do with, and how they view and relate to the PCs, etc. Back in the late 1970's some game designers thought they could make 'Generic Systems'. They thought that designing an RPG was just about providing the mechanics to incorporate genre appropriate equipment, PC 'skills', NPCs, etc. and then, if it was 'realistic enough' that magically it would just evoke the correct tone and mood.

It proved to be an utter fallacy! It is CLEAR that guys like Gygax knew this from day one, as they never even attempted it (or it was a brief flirtation, 1E GW flirts with D&D mechanics for example). Everyone else learned it, though the demand out in the market for these generic games took a while to abate, and they still achieve a bit of a rebirth every 10 years or so. It is quite clear that, while you can do adjacent variations of a game like the various WW offerings which have used permutations of the Storyteller System, true generic platforms will always produce 2nd rate results compared with more bespoke mechanics.

PbtA however, tells me that this is not perfectly true when you stop focusing on character task mechanics and attributes as the core focus and instead build on a core process and agenda platform. I think this approach promises some pretty generalizable basic 'game toolbox'. FitD is an elaboration on this toolbox, and is still pretty flexible, maybe as much as basic PbtA even.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I’m gonna reply in a fairly simple manner, not because your full post isn’t interesting, but because the main point is fairly simple.

If you made each weapon proficiency work like a skill, and ran combat on the skill system, and just junked 99% of the combat rules, 5e still absolutely be a game.

The idea that it isn’t a game because it doesn’t pre-codify process, but instead leaves everything to a conversation with a simple resolution mechanic and fairly open ended consequence determination, is pretty wild.

Nevertheless. Now, I would say that COMBAT in 5e would still be a game in that (I may be making an assumption here) Hit Points would still be effective, and there would still be SOME sort of 'turn order' for combat. So just those 2 rules alone are enough to constrain the GM and create a 'valence' for each attack move. That is to say, you burn your 'turn' to attack, so that is its cost, and you inflict N damage when you hit, so that is its effect. Beyond that, presumably, the 'battlefield' is a fixed established fiction that every player is fully cognizant of. So, any tactical element (concentrating attacks on one enemy at a time for example, or flanking) would have clear requirements and payoffs.

However, if combat was actually simply "you make your 'attack check' and the GM will decide what happens to the target if you hit." and when or if you get to attack is simply decided based on what the GM calls out happening, then I would say it isn't much of a game. The GM could say "Oh, the orc attacked you, he hit, you're wounded" or just as easily say "your dead". This is EXACTLY how 5e-style 'traditional' resolution works RIGHT NOW OOTB in 5e EXCEPT in combat! What if the GM can simply say "Oh, the orc hit you, you're wounded, now your backfooted and he strikes again!" The entirety of all that really matters is now in the GM's hands. Especially if the DCs for all these checks are invented by him. Again, this is all exactly how non-combat works now in 5e. When you start to see COMBAT described that way, suddenly it sounds a LOT LESS LIKE A GAME, doesn't it! In fact it sounds just like when I was 5 and played 'Cowboys and Indians' with the children down the street (and may any Native Americans in this thread please have mercy on my 5 yr old self).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I love DW, but that is one of the worse written rule books out there. I would definitely recommend learning it from someone else.

People are all very different. DW's rules are really clear and easy to understand for me. I've never read any game that was more explicit in terms of how to play, what it will do, why, and when, etc. Obviously you have to read the whole thing, and probably read it fairly carefully, to fully understand it. It is definitely much different in organization than a game like 5e which simply takes you through a laundry list of mechanical options with some fairly generalized remarks about RP and process tacked on here and there, but which never gets down to brass tacks on that score.

 

[Sithlord]

People are all very different. DW's rules are really clear and easy to understand for me. I've never read any game that was more explicit in terms of how to play, what it will do, why, and when, etc. Obviously you have to read the whole thing, and probably read it fairly carefully, to fully understand it. It is definitely much different in organization than a game like 5e which simply takes you through a laundry list of mechanical options with some fairly generalized remarks about RP and process tacked on here and there, but which never gets down to brass tacks on that score.

It may just be harder for some of us that have been playing games like d&d, brp, and similar games for decades to grasp as quickly. It took me a long time to grasp it. Although I was playing it much quicker. There are good online sources that explain the game better imho.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

@AbdulAlhazred @Manbearcat Thank you for the thoughtful replies. I'm finding myself without the energy, today, to engage thoughtfully with detailed arguments, but if I feel up to it in the next few days I'll read them again and see if I have anything to add.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@AbdulAlhazred @Manbearcat Thank you for the thoughtful replies. I'm finding myself without the energy, today, to engage thoughtfully with detailed arguments, but if I feel up to it in the next few days I'll read them again and see if I have anything to add.

Thanks for the discussion. I find it really useful and interesting when I am a bit stuck in my game stuff.

 

[aramis erak]

Right, but BRP still has the same issue as 5e, there is no 'valence' to checks. Its core process is basically identical, the GM describes a scene, players invoke skills or attributes as checks to carry out specific actions; "I lift the chair." and the GM determines a difficulty, the player rolls, and either succeeds or fails, possibly with a level of success (the GM is not bound by those, at least in the edition of BRP I own, they are situationally useful basically). It is up to the GM exactly what a success or failure accomplishes/entails, and how often or many checks will be required to achieve a fictional goal/state desired by the players. As with 5e, this is only really more specifically elaborated for combat. I'm not sure about 'social actions', there are MANY 'social' skills. I'll accept that the most recent version of BRP (I don't even recall if that is what I have or not, I bought it a few years ago) may have some added rules. Still, given the fully GM-arbitrated and mediated nature of the BRP process, how much can it help? I guess it could get as intricate as the combat system, that would be something.

The original BRP box set settings had around 20 skills...
But that was before the popularity of the monolithic core.

Right, but just like d20 Modern, or just d20 system in general, there were many games that jumped on that bandwagon early in 5e, but pretty much all the 'd20 variant of X' sort of sank without a trace. I don't know of a single game that made a d20 conversion that didn't go back to its original design immediately after. I'm sure you can do quite a few variations on D&D, but it is still D&D!

SG1 totally flips advancement at level 5 to a "Buy the abilities, get the HP, Proficiency Bonus, Stat gains, and damage boost when you have spent X on abilities." I wish they'd done that at level 1, and a GM easily could...
That change made a HUGE difference in mechanical feel.