D&D 5E (More) ruminations on the future of D&D

[Desdichado]

I agree that for many RPGers a "classic D&D" game involves a stronger degree of GM authority than I prefer. My point is that this fact is somewhat hard to reconcile with the contention that there is something distinctively creative about participating in RPG play compared to other sorts of activities. In a game in which the GM has decided most of the key elements of backstory, situation, opposition and other stakes, etc, then what exactly does the creativity of the players consist? Forming mental images of things, and choosing whether to fight with a longsword or a mace?

That's not what I would call GM authority, that's what I would call a railroad. The GM does indeed create a backstory, situation, opposition and (some) other stakes, but he has no control--or shouldn't, anyway--over how the PCs react to it. If the only option is which weapon to use when attempting the foregone conclusion, then clearly there aren't any meaningful choices to make, i.e.--the situation is a classic railroad. I wouldn't call tha the classic D&D game, I'd call that a very poor D&D game.

 

[am181d]

In fact, the comic books are pretty abysmal right now, with a few exceptions, and have been for years. (Dan Abnett and Co.'s superhero space opera titles are the big exception. Ultimate Marvel was the exception for a time, but then Marvel went and screwed that up too.)

Off-topic (and with an acknowledgement that tastes are subjective), but: Abnett and Lanning haven't been guiding the Marvel Cosmic books for a few years now. It's true that the Ultimate Universe has been in shambles for a while now, but the Miles Morales Ultimate Spider-Man book is fantastic. In the main Marvel Universe, Hawkeye, Daredevil, She-Hulk, Black Widow, Thor, Silver Surfer, Avengers/New Avengers, All-New X-Men, Rocket Raccoon, Ms. Marvel, and Amazing Spider-Man all range from good to very good. And I'm sure I'm forgetting some. Again, tastes are subjective (and comic fans tend to have a nostalgic preference for the comics of their youth) but the idea that Marvel is phoning it in on the publishing side because they make all their money from movies now is objectively false. If anything, there success in other media has allowed them to take more risks, including adding more female-led books to their line-up and featuring a greater range of art styles.

Also, um: Something-something D&D something.

 

[am181d]

I agree that for many RPGers a "classic D&D" game involves a stronger degree of GM authority than I prefer. My point is that this fact is somewhat hard to reconcile with the contention that there is something distinctively creative about participating in RPG play compared to other sorts of activities. In a game in which the GM has decided most of the key elements of backstory, situation, opposition and other stakes, etc, then what exactly does the creativity of the players consist? Forming mental images of things, and choosing whether to fight with a longsword or a mace?

I personally don't think that this sort of creativity is all that profound. I don't think it warrants any sort of comparison to performing jazz, which does involve artistic spontaneity on the part of the performer.

It is true that D&D can be played in a mode that approaches a board game: Move through dungeon, attack monsters, collect treasure. Is your point that RPGs *never* involves "artistic spontaneity" or simply don't when played in this style?

Because my experience with RPGs involves a LOT more of the actual roleplaying, and while I wouldn't generally label that "artistic spontaneity" (too fancy!), it certainly involves plenty of improvisational storytelling.

 

[SkidAce]

I agree that for many RPGers a "classic D&D" game involves a stronger degree of GM authority than I prefer. My point is that this fact is somewhat hard to reconcile with the contention that there is something distinctively creative about participating in RPG play compared to other sorts of activities. In a game in which the GM has decided most of the key elements of backstory, situation, opposition and other stakes, etc, then what exactly does the creativity of the players consist? Forming mental images of things, and choosing whether to fight with a longsword or a mace?

I personally don't think that this sort of creativity is all that profound. I don't think it warrants any sort of comparison to performing jazz, which does involve artistic spontaneity on the part of the performer.

I always felt it was the creativity of developing the personality, and role in the fictional world of the specific character you are envisioning.

 

[Desdichado]

Off-topic (and with an acknowledgement that tastes are subjective), but: Abnett and Lanning haven't been guiding the Marvel Cosmic books for a few years now.

That's a shame. That's the last thing I've liked out of Marvel in the last five years or so.

It's true that the Ultimate Universe has been in shambles for a while now, but the Miles Morales Ultimate Spider-Man book is fantastic. In the main Marvel Universe, Hawkeye, Daredevil, She-Hulk, Black Widow, Thor, Silver Surfer, Avengers/New Avengers, All-New X-Men, Rocket Raccoon, Ms. Marvel, and Amazing Spider-Man all range from good to very good.

I haven't looked at all of those, but I'd disagree. The last thing I liked in the Avengers was the lead-up to and execution of Secret Invasion. After that, it's all gone to shambles. Thor is fantastic? I guess I have less patience for ideological preaching disguised as story-telling.

And I'm sure I'm forgetting some. Again, tastes are subjective (and comic fans tend to have a nostalgic preference for the comics of their youth) but the idea that Marvel is phoning it in on the publishing side because they make all their money from movies now is objectively false.

It's subjective but objective? There's nothing objective about it at all.

If anything, there success in other media has allowed them to take more risks, including adding more female-led books to their line-up and featuring a greater range of art styles.

I'm struggling to see how you said anything about them being good, though.

Anyway, yeah... D&D something-something. Is there a thread in Media Lounge talking about this topic anywhere?

I do think that the Marvel business model is a good one for D&D to attempt to follow--and I think to some degree they have, although clearly not as successfully (bad movies, mediocre video games, etc.) I think there's potentially a future there. But if that means that they can go explore SJW concepts in game rather than simply design good games, then that's not good for the game.

It might not make any difference to the brand, though, if the brand ends up getting successfully "divorced" from the game itself. That's kind of my point; the Marvel brand (and brands) don't even depend on the comic books themselves anymore. It almost doesn't matter what goes on in the comic books. It doesn't matter if Marvel even still makes comic books. The brand is now no longer dependent on them.

 

[Mercurius]

When I read a book I may sometimes generate images, but often don't. And when watching a (good) movie my imagination is engaged, also - I have to impute the inner life of the protagonists, which in a book may well be provided by way of narration. In my view there is nothing less imaginative in watching Casablanca and getting inside the heads of the characters, than reading Tolkien and imagining what Rivendell or Minas Tirith might look like.

That's a good point and interesting perspective - that imagination is not only visual, but also affective and psychological. I completely agree. Actually, philosopher Owen Barfield speaks of imagination as a crucial component in moral compassion, because we can't truly have compassion for another without being able to imagine what they are experiencing.

Perhaps we should also look at the difference between creating something oneself--whether as a GM, a story writer, movie maker, musician etc--and participating as a player, reader, viewer, listener. I think it is safe, and non-controversial, to say that the former requires more creative and imaginative elements than the latter, as a general rule.

I agree that for many RPGers a "classic D&D" game involves a stronger degree of GM authority than I prefer. My point is that this fact is somewhat hard to reconcile with the contention that there is something distinctively creative about participating in RPG play compared to other sorts of activities. In a game in which the GM has decided most of the key elements of backstory, situation, opposition and other stakes, etc, then what exactly does the creativity of the players consist? Forming mental images of things, and choosing whether to fight with a longsword or a mace?

Well it is like life. We are all given a genetic (or karmic) package, a family of origin, culture, natural talents, education, and so forth. The older we get, the more we have the opportunity for self-direction, self-creation - to interact with the world, others, and ourselves in a conscious way. Just as in life people do this to varying degrees, from being passive and unconscious to being truly autonomous, creative and awake people, so too do players run the gamut. In the end, we make of it what we put into it.

Actually, what you seem to see as a flaw in gaming I see as a positive quality: each player can choose how much of themselves they want to put into it. Some players just show up, drink beer, and roll dice. Some draw their own characters, write up back-stories, and take leadership roles in the game and world, making it their own.

In other words, even in a "classic D&D" game, there is immense possibility for creativity beyond simply showing up and choosing whether to swing a sword or not.

I personally don't think that this sort of creativity is all that profound. I don't think it warrants any sort of comparison to performing jazz, which does involve artistic spontaneity on the part of the performer.

Again, it really depends upon the individuals involved - but my point is that the potential is there for...anything. That is the beauty of RPGs, unlike books even where you're just reading something that is already set-in-stone, or unlike a video game where no matter how many options there are, you're still dealing with finite choices and mechanistic algorithms. The human imagination is organic and without boundary.

 

[pemerton]

That's not what I would call GM authority, that's what I would call a railroad.

Well, a railroad is just a special (and especially strong) case of GM authority!

The GM does indeed create a backstory, situation, opposition and (some) other stakes, but he has no control--or shouldn't, anyway--over how the PCs react to it. If the only option is which weapon to use when attempting the foregone conclusion, then clearly there aren't any meaningful choices to make, i.e.--the situation is a classic railroad. I wouldn't call tha the classic D&D game, I'd call that a very poor D&D game.

I've seen and experienced plenty of D&D play that basically fits my description, and plenty of modules too eg Dead Gods, a number of Ravenloft modules that I've seen, significant components of the OA modules, the bulk of The Sleeper in Dreams and Bastion of Broken Souls (as written, at least).

Even so-called non-railroads like The Keep on the Borderland don't foster differences of player-generated PC response that I would compare to artistic creation. Choosing whether to attack the kobolds, or to try and play them off against the goblins, may be tactically imaginative, but I don't think it's very comparable to improvisational jazz.

And while I don't play computer games, are there not computer games in which different sorts of strategies among factions are permitted and feasible?

It is true that D&D can be played in a mode that approaches a board game: Move through dungeon, attack monsters, collect treasure. Is your point that RPGs *never* involves "artistic spontaneity" or simply don't when played in this style?

Because my experience with RPGs involves a LOT more of the actual roleplaying, and while I wouldn't generally label that "artistic spontaneity" (too fancy!), it certainly involves plenty of improvisational storytelling.

I always felt it was the creativity of developing the personality, and role in the fictional world of the specific character you are envisioning.

In using the (figurative) label of choosing between a longsword or a mace, I am not just talking about "kick-in-the-door", boardgame-style D&D. I am also talking about D&D in which the players' main contributions to the game are to geneate personalties for their PCs, which find expression via some social interaction, battle cries, etc, but do not fundamentally drive the game.

Choosing whether my fighter is faithful or impious, headstrong or cautious, grumpy or welcoming of human contact - to me these are not significantly more creative than choice of weapon. They add fun colour to a session, and - if the GM is running a tight railroad - can make bearable, even pleasurable, what would otherwise be intolerable. But the only reason WoW couldn't be played with the same spirit is that it doesn't have a voice-driven interface, and so sociaility isn't as big a part of the game. When playing through The Sunless Citadel, for instance, whether my fighter is grumpy or friendly, or headstrong or cautious, makes no more real difference to the outcome than it might in WoW: it's just that, in the D&D session, with my friends there with me, I have more incentive to play for laughs or kudos from them rather than just playing to win.

I'm still far from clear what sort of imaginative/creative/artistic element [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] believes is key to RPGs and missing from video-games, but if it is this sort of player creativity - generating and expressing colour for their PCs - then I'm not sure that it's a point of quality, as opposed merely to difference, from computer-gaming.

Now a game in which the players contribute meaningfully to backstory, and to theme and stakes, and thereby (for instance) choose who their enemies are within the context of the campaign (eg are we soldiers for Heaven, or for Hell, or playing each side off against the other? for profit, or for humanity?), and really make a difference to how the plot of the campaign unfolds, is a different thing. That involves creativity, and something like artistic commitment, from the players.

But I'm not sure that this is the norm for D&D play.

Perhaps we should also look at the difference between creating something oneself--whether as a GM, a story writer, movie maker, musician etc--and participating as a player, reader, viewer, listener. I think it is safe, and non-controversial, to say that the former requires more creative and imaginative elements than the latter, as a general rule.

I think I agree, because I think this is basically what I've been saying.

It is possible to play RPGs, including D&D, in a fashion which reduces the degree of contrast between players and GM. The 4e DMG 2 discusses some of these techniques (as best I'm aware the relevant contributions are from Robin Laws, which I think is no coincidence) but not the only ones, and not even necessarily the best ones. But as I've posted upthread and reiterated in this post, I don't believe that these sorts of techniques are typical for D&D play.

Well it is like life. We are all given a genetic (or karmic) package, a family of origin, culture, natural talents, education, and so forth.

I don't think the analogy of "genetic package, family of origin, etc" is that helpful. All it tends to do is remind us that the Nietzschean conception of human life as artistic creation is, for many people much of the time, not very accurate. But if we want players to participate creatively in the game, then why would we project that into the game? For intance, why not let the player write all that backstory for his/her PC, and have it actually matter in play?

what you seem to see as a flaw in gaming I see as a positive quality: each player can choose how much of themselves they want to put into it.

<sniop>

my point is that the potential is there for...anything. That is the beauty of RPGs

I don't think it's a flaw; I just think it's a way in which RPGing does not, or at least need not and often does not, resemble improvisational jazz.

In my group I have five players, with varying degrees of desire to inject their own "artistic vision" into the game. It means that some PCs' agendas are clearer, and more foregrounded in play, than others. That's fine, and we roll along with it.

But the option is there. Those players who aren't putting in as much of their own creativity are free to if they want to.

If that is going to be the selling point for 5E, or any RPG, then I would approach aspects of the game design, and even moreso the writing of the instructional text, differently from how WotC seems to be. Conversely, if I wanted to pitch 5e as it is written and presented, I wouldn't be taking the "improvisational jazz" line. I'd emphasise (i) the freedom in conceiving of your PC and the basics of his/her place in the world, and (ii) the social atmosphere of play, which is relaxing and potentially engaging in quite a different way from computer gaming.

 

[Mercurius]

I'm still far from clear what sort of imaginative/creative/artistic element @Mercurius believes is key to RPGs and missing from video-games, but if it is this sort of player creativity - generating and expressing colour for their PCs - then I'm not sure that it's a point of quality, as opposed merely to difference, from computer-gaming.

Again, it is the inner, cognitive experience of imagination. Think of it this way: In a video game, your awareness is focused on the screen; in a tabletop RPG, your awareness is focused both at the game table and the "theater of mind." There is no, or very little, theater of mind in video gaming (at least from what I can gather).

I think I agree, because I think this is basically what I've been saying.

It is possible to play RPGs, including D&D, in a fashion which reduces the degree of contrast between players and GM. The 4e DMG 2 discusses some of these techniques (as best I'm aware the relevant contributions are from Robin Laws, which I think is no coincidence) but not the only ones, and not even necessarily the best ones. But as I've posted upthread and reiterated in this post, I don't believe that these sorts of techniques are typical for D&D play.

I agree and what you are pointing at sounds great, as long as this isn't advertised as the "right way to play" - but as one approach along a spectrum. I think the GM authority approach is also valid and can include creativity and imagination on the parts of the players.

I don't think the analogy of "genetic package, family of origin, etc" is that helpful. All it tends to do is remind us that the Nietzschean conception of human life as artistic creation is, for many people much of the time, not very accurate. But if we want players to participate creatively in the game, then why would we project that into the game? For intance, why not let the player write all that backstory for his/her PC, and have it actually matter in play?

I agree and haven't suggested otherwise. I was using an analogy of life, not suggesting that the DM write all that stuff for the players. I have always taken the approach that the player and DM co-create and "negotiate" a character background, and that it really depends on to what degree the player wants to actively participate. Most players, I find, just want to show up and play a "dwarf fighter" or an "elf wizard." Some want to envision a backstory, and some even want to co-create a place or culture of origin. But I think the key, as DM, is to be flexible and accommodating, but also with an eye of artistic integrity (e.g. I usually protest when players want to name their characters something intentional goofy that doesn't make sense in the context of the setting, like "Bubba Jones").

I don't think it's a flaw; I just think it's a way in which RPGing does not, or at least need not and often does not, resemble improvisational jazz.

In my group I have five players, with varying degrees of desire to inject their own "artistic vision" into the game. It means that some PCs' agendas are clearer, and more foregrounded in play, than others. That's fine, and we roll along with it.

But the option is there. Those players who aren't putting in as much of their own creativity are free to if they want to.

Well this is exactly what I was saying - every player is different and will want to engage to varying degrees. Most, though, actually prefer a more passive "I just want to be a character in the story" approach.

If that is going to be the selling point for 5E, or any RPG, then I would approach aspects of the game design, and even moreso the writing of the instructional text, differently from how WotC seems to be. Conversely, if I wanted to pitch 5e as it is written and presented, I wouldn't be taking the "improvisational jazz" line. I'd emphasise (i) the freedom in conceiving of your PC and the basics of his/her place in the world, and (ii) the social atmosphere of play, which is relaxing and potentially engaging in quite a different way from computer gaming.

I think you're a bit hung-up on the term "improvisational jazz" and stretching it far further than I had intended, creating a bit of a straw man of it, actually. First of all, I wasn't using that as a selling point for 5E but rather contrasting it to pop music as an analogy for the more imaginatively participatory nature of RPGs vs. video games. Maybe I should have contrasted improvisational jazz and classical music, where there is more individuality and self-direction in the former and the latter is more about playing perfectly, "doing it right." Just so, RPGs involve a kind of inner engagement that I see largely lacking in video games.

 

[pemerton]

Again, it is the inner, cognitive experience of imagination. Think of it this way: In a video game, your awareness is focused on the screen; in a tabletop RPG, your awareness is focused both at the game table and the "theater of mind." There is no, or very little, theater of mind in video gaming (at least from what I can gather).

<snip>

I think you're a bit hung-up on the term "improvisational jazz" and stretching it far further than I had intended, creating a bit of a straw man of it, actually.

<snip>

I wasn't using that as a selling point for 5E but rather contrasting it to pop music as an analogy for the more imaginatively participatory nature of RPGs vs. video games.

<snip>

RPGs involve a kind of inner engagement that I see largely lacking in video games.

Thanks, this does make it clearer to me what you have in mind.

 

[Desdichado]

I've seen and experienced plenty of D&D play that basically fits my description, and plenty of modules too eg Dead Gods, a number of Ravenloft modules that I've seen, significant components of the OA modules, the bulk of The Sleeper in Dreams and Bastion of Broken Souls (as written, at least).

Even so-called non-railroads like The Keep on the Borderland don't foster differences of player-generated PC response that I would compare to artistic creation. Choosing whether to attack the kobolds, or to try and play them off against the goblins, may be tactically imaginative, but I don't think it's very comparable to improvisational jazz.

I don't doubt it. What I doubt is that that's somehow more closely tied with D&D specifically rather than being a widespread problem throughout the hobby. After all, most of the classic Call of Cthulhu scenarios were extremely railroady (in more than one way in Horror on the Orient Express...