D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Micah Sweet]

Not what? You've never played in a game that's had the threats prepared ahead of time? Or you've never played in a game that's had any improvisation in it?

I've never played in (that I know of) or run a game in which improvisation on the GM side is the primary generator of play. It's always there in an RPG, of course, but for my games prep is more important.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think there's a difference between "the simulationist is abstracted" and "this simulation is providing results contrary to what I would expect".

If you expect a narrative that a crossbow is still dangerous to a mid-to-high level character, and your damage and health rules say the opposite, that's not the simulation being too abstract, that's the simulation being wrong.

I understand someone with sim priorities accepting abstraction; I have trouble expecting someone with sim priorities to accept the sim rules providing results in opposition to what's expected.

Like I said, I'm working on the "gun to your head" issue. I worked through design on this with a buddy of mine for a while, but an unrelated falling out has left me trying to finish the work on my own.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Personally, I still do this; whatever system I use I extrapolate to be true within the setting. When I run high-level D&D, everyone is aware that high-level characters are tougher and can endure multiple attacks with mundane weapons with a shrug. My entire setting cosmology for my 5e games is built around it.

I generally prefer to work from the other direction (adjust the mechanics to fit the fiction).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Levelling, and specifically how high level characters can take on multiple low level characters at no risk.

Levelling, and specifically, the quick pace through which a character can reach relatively high levels.

That first concern is still kinda about hit points, to be fair.

The second one is quite valid, which is why training time within the setting has more of a place in my ideal play, not to mention slower leveling in any case. However, I do think active adventuring leads to faster advancement in skill than that engaged in by more sedentary folks. You're welcome to disagree.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There was a game that tried to setting-align its structure with D&D assumptions; it was called Earthdawn.

Heard of it, but know very little about it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Absolutely. I've been saying for a few years now than John Wick is the perfect encapsulation of what a high-level fighter is trying to be.

from what i know of john wick (admittedly only vague knowledge) i'd say it's half of what a high level fighter is trying/wants to be, the other half is MCU hulk/thor-esc physical capability.

but that's a conversational rabbit hole i'm not looking to open up again in this thread right now.

 

[TwoSix]

I generally prefer to work from the other direction (adjust the mechanics to fit the fiction).

And that's fine if you want to do the heavy lifting. I'm a low-prep low-work DM; for me it's much more fun to just think through the setting consequences of a particular rule than to make up all new rules (and then have to transmit them to players!)

 

[Enrahim]

I just don't see any reason why being flexible shouldn't be the norm.

You don't see a ton of people who play exactly one type of video game, or one type of board game. TTRPGs shouldn't be any different.

I actually see there being clear silos in both video and board game segment. Go and chess have a strong following with people I have reason to believe go quite exclusive. I also get the impression that competative video game genres like FPS, RTS and MoBA has folowers that is close to exclusive until their game of choice gets technically obsolete. WoW also was a huge exclusive player title from my understanding.

What is quite unique to TTRPGs is that for board and video game it is only the most hard core that puts in the investment in the game that makes leaving it for other games hard because of the sunk cost. For TTRPGs we get sort of the oposite effect. The bar of entry is so high that for causal players it feels like a significant investment to just get to the point where you can play the game independently. It is the hard core players that has the entusiasm that the cost of learning a new system doesnt really feel like a potentially lost investment. And the kind of hard core players that seek variation rather than system mastery is (seemingly) much more rare than the causal player seeking variation.

 

[AlViking]

I just don't see any reason why being flexible shouldn't be the norm.

You don't see a ton of people who play exactly one type of video game, or one type of board game. TTRPGs shouldn't be any different.

There's a vast difference from downloading and playing a video game, jumping into play whenever I have time versus learning a new TTRPG, spending the time to learn the rules, finding people to play with, setting aside a few hours on a schedule on a regular basis.

If you know people who are into playing a wide variety of games, have enough free time and the desire to play other TTRPGs, many of us do not have the opportunity to play or the time.

 

[TwoSix]

I actually see there being clear silos in both video and board game segment. Go and chess have a strong following with people I have reason to believe go quite exclusive. I also get the impression that competative video game genres like FPS, RTS and MoBA has folowers that is close to exclusive until their game of choice gets technically obsolete. WoW also was a huge exclusive player title from my understanding.

I agree that there are absolutely people who hyperspecialize in one game or genre, but I don't think I'd define them as the "norm". Most people I know who play board games regularly own dozens upon dozens of board games (myself included). And I definitely know people who are still hardcore WoWers or LoLers or Fortnite players, but they still unwind with other games pretty often.

What is quite unique to TTRPGs is that for board and video game it is only the most hard core that puts in the investment in the game that makes leaving it for other games hard because of the sunk cost. For TTRPGs we get sort of the oposite effect. The bar of entry is so high that for causal players it feels like a significant investment to just get to the point where you can play the game independently. It is the hard core players that has the entusiasm that the cost of learning a new system doesnt really feel like a potentially lost investment. And the kind of hard core players that seek variation rather than system mastery is (seemingly) much more rare than the causal player seeking variation.

I would agree with this, but I think that's a side effect of having the dominant games in the space be focused on large amounts of character customization mechanical widgets. But I don't think that's a requirement in the TTRPG space. For example, I managed to get several D&D-only players into Daggerheart last week with minimal disruption, and had two very lively sessions.

If you lower the barrier to entry by making character creation easier without stripping too much customization, and also normalize shorter campaigns to encourage more experimentation and turnover, you can definitely get a wider variety of games being played without necessitating a hard-core approach.