Legends and Lore - The Temperature of the Rules

[LurkAway]

This is probably a bit of a departure from CJ's initial idea - because it is locating the sandboxiness in "Lore" rather than in Core.

Thanks for the clarification, because I was trying to argue that my Lore idea should be sandboxy, and CJ argued it should go to the Core. Also, with my posts about my Lore idea being sandboxy in order to deliver different simulationist according to different groups' tastes, what part of that cannot deliver either a RM or PF style experience?

What I liked about CJ's idea, and am keeping in my version of it, is that it gives "Legend" something to do that might attract 3E/PF players back - because Paizo on the whole does not focus on sandboxing but on adventure paths.

I don't think there is anything about my Legends idea that will attract back the 3E/PF crowd specifically because of its blatantly gamist roots. If Legends is slightly sandboxy, I'd guess its only to make tweaks at the metagame level, tactical changes, that kind of thing.

I think that splitting D&D into 4 variations (Core, Legends, Lore, Pathfinder) will fracture the market too much, and lead to customer confusion (witness the divide and confusion between core 4E and Essentials and the controversy lead up to it)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

... Which suggests that "Lore" has to be 3E/PF-ish, which is to say simulationist only in some respects, perhaps more than merely superficial or peripheral (cf 3E grappling rules) but with big non-simulationist chunks remaining (especiallly in core combat resolution).

I have been imagining a situation-based "Legend" and a sandboxy "Lore" - with "Legend" tweaking the dials in a fashion that makes the non-simulationism clear, while "Lore" adds in a few bells and whistles to generate the minimum appearance of simulation that is 3E/PF (with the sandboxy scenario design being one of those bells and whistles).

This is probably a bit of a departure from CJ's initial idea - because it is locating the sandboxiness in "Lore" rather than in Core. Core, on my version of CJ's idea, is neutral as between sandbox or situation as the basis of scenario design.

What I liked about CJ's idea, and am keeping in my version of it, is that it gives "Legend" something to do that might attract 3E/PF players back - because Paizo on the whole does not focus on sandboxing but on adventure paths.

On my model, then there would be four versions of D&D:

*"Core", published by WotC, with a stripped-back PC build and action resolution chassis, with the focus on the GM preparing a scenario or reading a simple module and the players being able to jump right in - because so much of the context and the subtlety of scenario design and action resolution would be contibuted by the participants (and especially the GM), the play of Core could easily be drifted in a variety of directions, but wouldn't particularly support any of them - the expectation would be that players would migrate to one of the other three versions that suited their preferences better;

*"Legend", published by WotC and offering a non-simulationist mechanical experience with the focus of play being on the situation as a site for either light narrativism or light gamism, the rules being written so that minimal drifting is required to go one way or the other (think 4e as an example);

*"Lore", published by WotC and offering a pseudo-purist-for-system experience with Gygaxian naturalist and gamist (as in "playing to win") elements, and the focus of the fiction being on sandbox setting exploration (this would be classic D&D but realised via 3E-ish mechanics) - depending on how the GM sets up the sandbox and how the players tackle it, the gamism might drop out and we drift to a type of "merchants and explorers" simulationism where most of the focus of play happens outside the context of the action resolution mechanics, at least until some of the more obscure and specialised supplements are put onto the market;

*Pathfinder, published by Paizo and offering a pseudo-purist-for-system experience with strong high concept and gamist elements, with the focus of the fiction being on the players' experience of preplotted adventure paths - if the GM starts fudging, then the gamism drops out and we've drifted to pure 2nd-ed style high concept simulationism (with or without an illusionist cloak, depending how blatant the fudging is).
​

I personally doubt that this model is commercially viable, because (i) Core will leak to Pathfinder, and (ii) maintaing both Legend and Lore will be a lot of work for WotC. But that's just a gut feel from someone with no business or publishing experience whatsoever!

Your model may not be commercially viable, but add pure hack and slash (whether via the "core" or drifted 1E), and you have stated, I think, all the major ways that D&D has historically been played. Now granted, the "Legends", "Lore", and "Pathfinder" versions where not as obvious as now, because the ruleset didn't really support any of them at the start. But I'd say those are roughly what people were trying to do.

I did say that I thought the sandbox default should be in the core, and I still think that from a marketing/sales perspective, but note that this is an aside from the other points I was making. That is, I think:

1. There is an untapped market for good sandbox materials, because groups keep trying it, with relatively little to work with. And unlike selling adventure after adventure, there are potentially some "source" materials for sandbox that would appeal to others.

2. It is a lot easier to modify sandbox source material to be something else than it is to modify something else into a sandbox. If you've got, say, 128 pages of pure sandbox source material (maps, locations, NPCs, items, etc.), then it is not terribly difficult to spend 4-8 pages setting up an event-based plot for those that want it, and not impossible even to spend 32 pages or so setting up a pre-plotted story for those that want that. You'll have to make a few compromises in the pre-plotted stuff, but not killer ones for many people.

Moreover, I think the sandbox default moves to the Core, because I think it applies to the "Legends" piece as well. The same way that D&D will never be purist simulation, it is not going to be purist narrative, either. If nothing else, the strong gamist element limits how pure it can be otherwise. You might say that if D&D sandbox simulation is exploring the world, then D&D sandbox narrative is exploring the characters (PC and NPC). Then you have the strange mix of all three, which is as if Dickens characters were playing D&D, and the sandbox is explored in a pretend simulation, which reveals the characters.

So I'm saying make it all default to sandbox styles, but that leaves openings for each option to drift into a more comfortable fit. Some of those fits won't be truly sandbox.

 

[KidSnide]

4e as written is only weakly simulationist, so I'm batting on a stickier wicket than with prior editions; I accept that. Despite that, the 4e ruleset actually gives results much closer to the imaginary physics of my worlds than a more sim system like 3e did. 3e is a more simulationist engine but it simulated worlds not very much like the sort of worlds I want to play in; 4e is less simulationist in orientation but gives default results much closer to what I want.

Basically I take 4e and fill in the gaps; eg I create NPC power demographics since there aren't any in 4e; 4e is written with a story-first approach where NPCs only have stats when they interact with the PCs. So I give them 'objective' stats. It's a bit of work, but I think less work than tweaking 3e to fit my worlds.

I just wanted to comment on S'mon's comment about 4e simulationism because I have had the same experience. Late in 3e, I found myself struggling against the system because the simulation that the 3.x rules provided simply didn't match the "physics" of the game world I was trying to run.

4e provides much less in the way of world-defining-rules, but -- for me at least -- it was addition by subtraction. Decoupling the action-resolution mechanics from the world-definition mechanics made simulation more flexible.

-KS

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I was just re-reading this. Although some have been hinting at levels being incompatible with a simulationist game, I've avoided thinking about eliminating levels, because I believe I read an article by Mearls that levels was one of the sacred cows of D&D (along with ability scores, etc.) that were essential to the game.

As we discussed, in 3E, levels primarily represent combat experience, and in 4E, they represent adventuring experience. Let's call it a heroic Combat Level and an Adventuring Level, respectively.

One thing I didn't like about 3E NPC rules was that it was applying Combat Levels (with attack bonuses, hp, etc.) to a non-combatant. Really, the level should be indicative of their life experience. A blacksmith should have a Blacksmith Level where 1 is apprentice and 5 is Master and you get x skill points per level and maybe a Str bonus. That's just a theoretical example, I'm not advocating actual Blacksmith Levels except maybe in a complicated game (although using that as a general guideline for NPC creation might be useful, I'm not sure).

Some questions - if a scrawny rogue is hanging back at every battle and allowing everyone else to do all the fighting, does he get xp towards a Combat Level? If a fat scholary wizard never helps anybody around the dungeon and keeps a nose buried in his book, does he get xp towards an Adventuring Level? If the game is sandboxy, is it justified to eliminate scrawny rogues and fat scholarly wizards from the game, or do you allow them as viable characters? If the latter, does the player want to receive a Combat Level or Adventuring Level and why?

All this musing is to suggest to me that a truly sandboxy Lore edition might be quite different than the Legends edition, not just by toggling of core rules, but by toggling the quality of levels as well...

First, I'm not sure that you are using the same definition of "sandbox" that pemerton and I are using (or even that pemerton and I are 100% in sync, either). So maybe we'd better clear that up. For me, a pure sandbox is one in which there are defined limits (scope of the world, character power levels, what magic and can't do, and any number of such things, though not all of them in any given world necessarily)--that is, the "box". Then you have the elements that are in the box (mainly, characters, NPCs, monsters, locations, items)--that is, the "sand". The characters go an interact with those other elements inside the box, and the DM referees.

For a pure sandbox, there is no preplotted action whatsoever. (The DM may have notes about goals and motivations, and things NPCs will do if not interfered with, but as a purist referee, these are are tentative.) More commonly, you'll get a less pure version where some of those major events are allowed to roll along (albeit somewhat modified if the players interfere) in order to keep the action moving. (I have seldom run a pure version, but I've come fairly close a few times.)

That says nothing about styles. I've run almost pure hack and slash sandbox. I've run a mostly purist simulation exploration sandbox. I've run character-based exploration with the sandbox as background. And right now, I'm running a strange cross between a narrative, character-focused sandbox and a straight gamist, dungeon crawl sandbox. If internet reports can be trusted, there are a few other possibly sandbox styles, too.

Your reservations about levels are one of the classic responses from someone who wants D&D as pretend simulation. (For clarity, there is no judgment being made here about that style, though I don't favor it personally. If the "pretend" adjective is too much, I'm open to another.) It is in contrast to someone like me or pemerton, who when we play simulation, want to move to a game that overtly supports that style, like Runequest. I like rules with a clear style in the mechanics, even though I often like games to be played in a muddle. It is easier for me to drift from a known point. Apparently, a lot of people like games with a muddled style in the mechanics, which they can then tweak this or that to get where they want.

So yes, one of the ways to make the pretend simulation crowd happy is to remove some of the power from levels, but keep the heart of adventuring in levels. If they wanted the adventuring removed from the levels, then they would be one of those first two groups I mentioned earlier that play D&D but don't like it being D&D. But you can take out a certain amount of the peripheral stuff and still make something that is recognizable as D&D. There is, for example, no inherent reason why skills or ability scores need to scale with class level. If they don't, many things that the pretend simulation crowd wants will be easy to achieve (e.g. wizards with no particular ability towards opening doors).

However, let's not go to far and assume that you can stop there. Pretend simulation may be a sizable portion of D&D, but it is not all of it, and I doubt even a majority. So whatever means are chosen, there had better also be a way to support people who want their wizards broadly competent by the time they are 10th level wizards--and it had better work mechanically, too (unlock 3E skill ranks, in this respect). A narrowing of the scaling of DCs is the most obvious way to satisfy both groups, and I doubt a better one (i.e. one with less nasty side effects) can be discovered.

 

[LurkAway]

[MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] considering that a lot of gamers aren't informed about narrativist or simulationist Forge theory, especially newbies, how would you plan the differentiate the 3 product lines, such that all consumers understands why they would want to play Core or Legends or Lore (vs Pathfinder and other rpgs) and what each delivers?

I assumed a dual approach because of the KISS rule and I still think that applies here as much as anywhere else.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I just wanted to comment on S'mon's comment about 4e simulationism because I have had the same experience. Late in 3e, I found myself struggling against the system because the simulation that the 3.x rules provided simply didn't match the "physics" of the game world I was trying to run.

4e provides much less in the way of world-defining-rules, but -- for me at least -- it was addition by subtraction. Decoupling the action-resolution mechanics from the world-definition mechanics made simulation more flexible.

This matches my experience as well. Given a choice between a model that follows a process well enough versus a model that produces a result well enough, I'll pick the latter every time. Not least because, my experience is that a game that tries to model the physics of the game world will either fail in those results, or become so unwieldy that it is no longer playable, or not infrequently, both.

But I have also learned (in gaming, but also in software and any other kind of abstract modeling) that there are people for whom "simulation" means "model processes". So when you and S'mon talk about simulation results that you appreciate, they have no clue what you mean.

 

[LurkAway]

First, I'm not sure that you are using the same definition of "sandbox" that pemerton and I are using (or even that pemerton and I are 100% in sync, either).

That's possible. These terms get in the way a lot. Remembering indie/modern/gamist...

So maybe we'd better clear that up. For me, a pure sandbox is one in which there are defined limits (scope of the world, character power levels, what magic and can't do, and any number of such things, though not all of them in any given world necessarily)--that is, the "box". Then you have the elements that are in the box (mainly, characters, NPCs, monsters, locations, items)--that is, the "sand". The characters go an interact with those other elements inside the box, and the DM referees.

I thought sandbox was exploratory, flexible, adjusting the rules up and down, that kind of thing. I never saw the box as a defined limit, except box = fantasy story, and not sci-fi, modern, etc.

Your reservations about levels are one of the classic responses from someone who wants D&D as pretend simulation. (For clarity, there is no judgment being made here about that style, though I don't favor it personally. If the "pretend" adjective is too much, I'm open to another.) It is in contrast to someone like me or pemerton, who when we play simulation, want to move to a game that overtly supports that style, like Runequest.

My 'reservations' about levels were only so far as to address pemerton's apparent reservation of levels for a "simulationist" D&D. Since we've already assumed (I think!) that hardcore Runequest/Rolemaster players aren't migrating to D&D for their simulationist needs, can we either dispense with referring to that system, or did you assume that any edition of 5E should give up on that kind of "pretend simulation" because you think RM/RQ has a monopoly on that playstyle?

Pretend simulation may be a sizable portion of D&D, but it is not all of it, and I doubt even a majority. So whatever means are chosen, there had better also be a way to support people who want their wizards broadly competent by the time they are 10th level wizards

Fair enough, and I've been struggling to democracticaly support all playstyles, which is why I've expressly stated that a "sandboxy" (whatever that means) or rules flexible Lore edition offers the building blocks to go with a gritty wizard or a broadly competent wizard (vs the Legends wizard who is always broadly competent).

Edit: It might be just me, but I find that you and pemerton are prone to a certain writing style that I sometimes find verbose and dense, especially when you drift off into game theory. It would be help me very much if you wrote in plainer simpler sentences. Again, maybe it's just me.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

@[URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=54877"]Crazy Jerome [/URL]considering that a lot of gamers aren't informed about narrativist or simulationist Forge theory, especially newbies, how would you plan the differentiate the 3 product lines, such that all consumers understands why they would want to play Core or Legends or Lore (vs Pathfinder and other rpgs) and what each delivers?

I assumed a dual approach because of the KISS rule and I still think that applies here as much as anywhere else.

Well, for starters, all of it is going to be an impure version of simulation or narrativism, as it has always been. So it would be fine to exclude those terms altogether, or possibly limit them to some design notes in the DMG about game theory, if relevant. My instinct is to leave them out entirely, but then the commentary by Gygax in 1E, while it did cause some trouble, also managed to convey what he had in mind with the rules, which went no small way towards explaining the rest of the game more easily.

So, I'd have each version (however packaged) include the usual information on how to play it, along with extensive examples of play. You might remember from an earlier topic that one of my beefs with 4E advice is that too much of it is written as "play it this way" to make it easy for the beginners, but that some of the things it discusses have alternates that should be included somewhere. You don't have to go crazy with every possible alternate, but there is a big difference between saying, "Do X," versus, "Do X to get A. Or Do Y to get B. Or maybe Z to get C"--especially when X, Y, and Z are all pretty different. Gamers are smart enough to read between the lines, and start blending those to get what they want.

This is partly why I say the Core is a separate game, however packaged. There is a gamist thread running through any real version of D&D. So if you do the Core as a starter set, you make pratically all the advice from that mindset. Go into the dungeon, avoid the trap, kill the dragon, get the treasure, get snookered by the evil wizard back in town. There is more that you can do with that, but the basic are largely still intact with everything that comes later. (You might also include some information in this part about complicating the action so that it isn't always an orc and pie in a 10 foot square room.)

Then in the "Lore" version, you have the supplemental rules that happen to cater to simulation somewhat (whatever you call them). Some are things like demographic charts and such, which anyone can use if they want, even in the Legend version. The advice is centered on making this simulation work, and would probably draw heavily but selectively from 1E, 2E, and 3E.

In the "Legends" version, you likewise have supplemental rules that happen to cater to narrativist somewhat (whatever you call them). Some are things like the 4E "page 42", which anyone can use if they want, even in the Lore version. The advice pulls heavily from 4E DMG and DMG2, but but without trying to bring along the traditional baggage from the eariler versions, or including the "Drama" component from earlier game models.

Or in short, tell people how to play that particular variant of the game. Three clear, contradictory "ways to play the game" are far superior to one big muddled "way" that tries to cover too much ground.

 

[LurkAway]

Crazy Jerome , I apologize again, but the explanation is extremely dense. pretend I am a teenager. You are a marketing/sales person or my geek gaming uncle. I am impatient and want to play videogames. What are the differences between the 3 versions?

 

[S'mon]

I just wanted to comment on S'mon's comment about 4e simulationism because I have had the same experience. Late in 3e, I found myself struggling against the system because the simulation that the 3.x rules provided simply didn't match the "physics" of the game world I was trying to run.

4e provides much less in the way of world-defining-rules, but -- for me at least -- it was addition by subtraction. Decoupling the action-resolution mechanics from the world-definition mechanics made simulation more flexible.

-KS

Yep. I have come to love how 4e solves the 'RPGs are crappy physics engines' problem by gutting the bits of D&D that enabled it to be run as a physics engine. Huge swathes of stuff are handed back to DM fiat. For instance, if I want NPC wizards who can't cast battle magic, or who can't open mundane doors, 4e has no problem with that. If I want NPC smiths who can forge magic weapons, but have minimal combat ability, 4e has no problem with that. If I want noncombatant princess NPC to have 1 hp or 100 hp (whether for story or for sim reasons), 4e has no problem with that.
It's very liberating.

Furthermore, when I do treat it as a physics engine, I tend to get reasonable results, or at least better than 1e-3e. Take city guards - instead of hapless Ftr-0s and War-1s who'd be lucky to survive an angry housecat, get a MM/MV Soldier-3 who's statted in such a way he can actually do his job of fending off Skirmisher-2 common bandits, minion-1 goblin mooks, and in company even facing off against brute-6 ogres. At the same time he clearly needs help from Paragon PCs against high level threats. Or, conversely, take mid-Heroic Wizard (N)PCs - no longer can the Wiz-6 wave his hand and obliterate the city guard, making conventional armies pointless.

I used to see situations in 1e-3e where (N)PC parties around 10th level could, per RAW, use magic to literally destroy armies in the low thousands. And the demographics data in 1e-3e made such NPC characters all too common. Every random wilderness fortress in 1e had an NPC Lord of 9th+ level who could easily wipe out his own army (of a hundred or so) single-handed. Fine for 'Way of the Exploding Fist', terrible for the default medievalesque paradigm.

I can't imagine that (killing armies) in 4e until you're up into Epic tier, by which time it becomes a lot more thematically appropriate. That Elric + Stormbringer can kill an army doesn't bother me.