Passing notes at the table

[Doug McCrae]

I reject the notion that the game as a whole has a basic plot, sorry. The game is just a facilitator for whatever plots the group wants to run.

...

The game itself has no plot. People's games have plots, but D&D as a whole does not.

It has more rules for invade monsters' homes, kill them and take their stuff than it does for unrequited love. So I would say it facillitates the former far more than the latter.

 

[Desdichado]

It has more rules for invade monsters' homes, kill them and take their stuff than it does for unrequited love. So I would say it facillitates the former far more than the latter.

So what? Invading monsters homes, killing them and taking their stuff are all things that require rules, while unrequited love does not.

Besides; there's rules for all kinds of things that don't get used. The presence of a rule does not mean that the game suddenly revolves around it.

AND ANOTHER THING; invading monsters homes, killing them and taking their stuff in no way means a party of adventurers that keeps no secrets from each other.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Sorry, Hobo, you're just plain wrong here. D&D does have a basic plot - the home invasions I mentioned above. Other rpgs have other basic plots and rules to facilitate them. For example the original James Bond game has rules for seduction, in four stages, that are a bit more detailed than those in most games. Pendragon has more rules for emotion, courtly love and so forth than D&D because it's appropriate to the genre. It could be quite possible to write a game that has no rules for home invasions but quite detailed rules for romance. I don't think anyone's done it yet because there's no market but it should be doable. I guarantee you that when that game is played there would be less home invadin' and more lovin'. Rules matter.

We can get away without any rules for character interaction because of the different nature of combat and talking. Talking is easy to simulate at the table just by, y'know, talking. Combat is harder. But that doesn't mean there can't be rules for talking as is the case with certain Forge-y narrativist nonsense games. Personally I don't think those games work very well, but they do facillitate a different sort of play than D&D.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Besides; there's rules for all kinds of things that don't get used. The presence of a rule does not mean that the game suddenly revolves around it.

We're talking about whether rule sets imply basic plots or not, what type of individual games do the rules facillitate. In my view, the D&D rules support home invasions. Now you could choose to ignore those rules. You could run D&D without any home invasions. Why you would have chosen D&D as a system to support such a game I have no idea and would argue that it's a poor choice. But how you run your individual game is irrelevant to the question.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Besides; there's rules for all kinds of things that don't get used. The presence of a rule does not mean that the game suddenly revolves around it.

The vast majority of the core rules - PHB, DMG, MM - revolve around the creation of characters that are good at fighting, the spells they use (almost all combat-oriented), the combat rules, the places they explore, the monsters they fight and the magic items they find. That's 90% of the content of the core rules right there. I would suggest that is what D&D (the text, not your game) revolves around - killing things and taking their stuff.

 

[Desdichado]

Wow, how many times do you need to reply to a single post of mine? Ever hear of the Edit button?

In any case, no I'm not "plain wrong." In fact, it's immpossible for me to be wrong on this issue, as these kinds of games can't---by their very nature---have a plot.

Granted; that's how a lot of people play the game, and the assumption of the designers is that that's how most people will play it, so they beefed up sections that facilitate it. But you're pushing that point WAY too far by claiming that because of the preponderance of rules that support a certain play style that the game has a "basic plot" or that it can only be used one way.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sorry, Hobo, you're just plain wrong here. D&D does have a basic plot - the home invasions I mentioned above. Other rpgs have other basic plots and rules to facilitate them. For example the original James Bond game has rules for seduction, in four stages, that are a bit more detailed than those in most games. Pendragon has more rules for emotion, courtly love and so forth than D&D because it's appropriate to the genre. It could be quite possible to write a game that has no rules for home invasions but quite detailed rules for romance. I don't think anyone's done it yet because there's no market but it should be doable. I guarantee you that when that game is played there would be less home invadin' and more lovin'. Rules matter.

Cool.

But if I accept what you say, then I must also accept that 3e is inherently more limited than previous editions, because previous editions had rules for things like creating domains, fealty relationships, the colour and taste of potions, etc.

Of course, I don't think you believe that.

It is true that the game rules influence (in many cases, heavily) the basic plots that a rpg is used to tell, but it isn't true that they influence the plots that a rpg can tell as much as you are claiming (if at all).

RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

But you're pushing that point WAY too far by claiming that because of the preponderance of rules that support a certain play style that the game has a "basic plot" or that it can only be used one way.

For me support a certain play style = has a basic plot. To say that the rules can only be used one way is going too far for me, I wouldn't claim that. I don't think anyone would.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

You're not interesting in books movies and TV shows with a team of people that don't have tensions between them? Do you actually read any books or watch any movies or TV shows?

Continued assumption of the universiality of your perceeptions and opinions. Not suprizing.

In any case, you're also misrepresenting my point; of course I grok the idea of a party of adventurers that works well together, what I don't grok is the idea that that's the only way to play the game.

Backtracking. You in fact stated that you were "always a bit surprised at the notion that D&D is a team/cooperation oriented game." And since no one said that was the only way, merely the baseline way which people chose to diverge from*, your attempt to shift the subject is rejected.

*this default also includes magic users, a low tech level and the existance of dungeons and dragons in the world. You are free to change all of these without needing to deny the existance of the default.

 

[Desdichado]

For me support a certain play style = has a basic plot. To say that the rules can only be used one way is going too far for me, I wouldn't claim that. I don't think anyone would.

Fair enough. Sounds like we're in agreement then more or less, just arguing about what terms to use to describe it. Which isn't worth doing.