[revolution] Exactly WHY is d20 so great, comparing?

[Psion]

That's not an argument against "system matters". First, the fact that a scenario can work in multiple systems doesn't preclude the possibility that it works very differently, or even just feels very different, depending on which system you actually use.

True, but again my point is not a dichotomous one, but a matter of degrees. The approach to different challenges and the way they play out would be different in, say, D&D and d20, but you are still telling fundamentally the same story.

Second, those systems happen to be mostly fairly similar--the "system matters" crowd is often talking about fairly base elements, like narrativism vs. gamism, and the systems you've mentioned mostly are fairly close in those sorts of ways, differing only in the specific numbers involved.

While I am all wrapped in the threefold models, et al., again, I find that system matters to a much more limited degree than some claim, and which end of the threefold you hang your hat at is influenced almost as much by the playstyle of the group and GM as the system itself.

I can get on board with that. Provided you acknowledge that some of the differences are actual--even if they don't matter to some players. Frex, claiming that there is no objective meaningful difference between D&D3E and Everway is, IMHO, absurd--it's not just different stats and scores, it's a whole different way of modeling characters and resolving actions. [Not saying you claimed this, just using an example.

Again, we are speaking in a a matter of degrees here; certainly Everway and D&D are more different in style and approach that most of the aforementioned Atlas games. However, the actual differences in play are still largely influenced by preferences. I can think of many campaigns I could feel like I could run in either. What makes everyway the most different is that I prefer to have many of the structural mechanisms in D&D for character design and I my preference is a less "bossy" resolution system than that of everway.

What if you really don't find gaming happiness with D20 System?

Then that's a different situation than what I speak of. If you have preferences that lean towards other existing systems (like preferring bell curves in resolution), then D&D might not be worth your time to repair or "grin & bear" the mismatch with your preferences. But if your preferences exist only because of some conjured up anger or now false preconceptions, there is a lot of well written and conceived material out there which you are missing out on.

 

[Psion]

As far as I'm concerned, mechanics should be transparent to facilitate the kind of games I like. Mechanics that "facilitate" storytelling are not transparent, they are too full of how clever they are, or how clever the players have to be to implement them well.

This is my experience as well. I find mechanics that try to steer the action or PC reactions more intrusive than useful.

But that's just my preference.

 

[Desdichado]

This is my experience as well. I find mechanics that try to steer the action or PC reactions more intrusive than useful.

That's exactly the turn of phrase I was looking for. And those are the mechanics that are supposedly "storytelling" based, or Narrativist or what have you.

 

[d4]

This is my experience as well. I find mechanics that try to steer the action or PC reactions more intrusive than useful.

which is likely why d20 has fewer rules for social interaction than for combat. given the design aesthetic of d20, lots of rules for social interaction would be considered a hindrance.

 

[woodelf]

But to newcomers, as i have been for two years now (gradually becoming more and more involved) - this has the most terrible of effects! It scares them off the scene, because they think- as so heartstabberingly many (people i know, at least) do - that DnD is/has ALL that there could be to offer in roleplaying.

This is a very real problem, though one of unknown magnitude. I've had several people try and love RPGs, after having tried them and rejected them as horrible. The difference? The first time was with D&D, and they didn't like it. But for reasons that aren't central to the nature of an RPG--things like all the math, or the complexity of the rules, or the setting. Setting aside the last, I wonder how many people have rejected RPGs outright because their only exposure to them is the rulesy D&D (in just about any incarnation), and they aren't interested in such complex games. When you're new to a medium, you might not be able to dissect it well enough to recognize which elements are inherent to an RPG, and which are merely aspects of this particular RPG.

I dont know of any way to solve this perfectly. However - it would help if the core books had (DONT arrest me with quotes!, damn you, then ill have to resist your arrest with counterquotes, and then the philosphical discourse is lit, and we're all doomed) more extreme variances of game types, it is, after all, NOT only made for Greyhawk, its supposed to be the rules core + a wardrobe of supplemental rules (pick what goes well together, and remember - dark in the fall, festive in the spring). Where Wizards have made a grand mistake, is when they stuck to one type of gaming, even when they tried to cover the spectrum of possibilities on so many other fronts (damnit, i wish i had DMG right now).

First of all, the D&D3E DMG *does* have support for other styles of gaming--but it is, IMHO, rather cursory. If you already know you want another style, it has all the support you need to adjust D&D3E to fit. But i'm not sure it has enough info to teach or encourage another style for those who're only familiar with D&D.

Anyway, i agree with you wholeheartedly. IMHO, D&D3E is inferior to AD&D2 for the simple reason that it has less support for the style of game i want. AD&D2 was, overall, a poorer game. But it was a better narrativist game (even while being a poor narrativist game in general), and maybe a better simulationist game (though a poor simulationist game in general). Just that most D&D gamers (maybe most gamers in general) seem to want a good gamist RPG with a modicum of simulationist support, and prefer to keep the narrativism out of the game mechanics (and maybe out of the game). AD&D2 is a perfect example of the price of trying to be all things to all people: in the process of trying to support multiple play styles, it pretty much failed to support any of them very well (or, perhaps, even adequately). Better, i think, to just choose one thing (or a group of compatible things) and be good at it, as D&D3E has done. For the player--don't play D&D3E if you don't like gamist RPGs. Yes, you could change it (as i said, the DMG has some advice in this direction), but you'll have a lot fewer headaches if you simply start with a game closer to your tastes.

 

[Merova]

Storytelling vs. Immersion

This is my experience as well. I find mechanics that try to steer the action or PC reactions more intrusive than useful.

But that's just my preference.

Hi all!

It's my preference as well. I'm totally into explorationist sim, with actor immersive stance. That's my favorite style of gaming. However, it isn't "storytelling." Yes, stories may arise from the games, but that isn't the focus. The focus is in the exploration experience.

In attaining this quality, I prefer games that include a decent degree of simulationist modeling, which is why I like Hero, GURPS, FUDGE, Tri-stat, and d20. These systems are capable of modeling many complex situations and challenges, while offering a simple resolution method.

Because I am willing to invest time in become "familiar" with the ruleset, in actual play, the rules become transparent. They allow me to "immerse" myself in the situation. There's no "bump" time of calculating Storyteller or Shadowrun style dice pools, or doing the Earthdawn or Alternity resolution shifts, or complex Margin of Success adjudication like Unisystem or Deadlands, etc.

This isn't a knock on any of these games. I like all of them, and have played campaigns using each system, but I found that their task resolution systems occasionally suffered in actual play due to their lack of systematic "streamline."

Nevertheless, none of these rulesets offer control over the narrative, only actions within the game experience. So, if you're interested in a game of "storytelling" then the rules cannot be transparent, because they are the tools by which the narrative experience is crafted.

For instance, in the game octaNe, the basic resolution system is in controlling the narrative. When control is obtained, the player may narrate a scene right out of a Gamma World scenario. However, the scene is narrated not played. Obviously, this is a different experience from what you'd get in an actual Gamma World game.

So, matters of preference aside, when discussing games that actively promote storytelling, you need to make a distinction between active narrative control and passive immersive experience. Hence, Trollbabe promotes "storytelling" and Storyteller promotes "immersion."

Thanks for reading.

---Merova

 

[woodelf]

This quote makes Trollbabe sound like a game I wouldn't ever want to play. Resolution is dependent on word games. If I try to make sure nothing is there, then success doesn't mean "nothing is there", it means that I am sure nothing is there (as in I have checked and made sure). If some game master tried to play such idiotic nonsense with me I'd walk out promptly.

First, please don't discount an innovative game because i like or advocate it, or because of a single quote without context (which, when you point it out that way, i see isn't the best example for demonstrating how Trollbabe is intended to play).

Now, what that quote doesn't make clear is that it's not a matter of word games--the point isn't to second-guess the GM, it's to decide what you want to happen. A good GM would let you know the results of success and failure for your choice, and make sure you understood them. The point is intent, not phrasing. IOW, if you want to check to "make sure nothing is there", then a success means that you have "made sure"--i.e., there really is nothing. The goal is to put more of the control into the players' hands.

Let my compare and contrast to how most RPGs expect to be run (commenting on the rules-as-written, not the game-as-played, so if you play it differently, that's beside the point). In a typical D&D scenario, the GM is gonna have an encounter loosely planned out. Let's say it's a small band of orcs ambushing the group. So the GM has decided their actions and motives, and to some degree their personalities. The players get to choose how to interact within that framework (for example, the half-orc in the party may attempt to parley once the orcs reveal themselves, rather than fight), but not the framework itself. The potential downside is that if the players want a social encounter, and the GM gives them a combat encounter, they may not be able to shift it to their tastes without breaking SoD.

Trollbabe would shift much of that decision-making power to the players right from the get-go. The GM wouldn't decide that the orcs were hostile, or even that there was going to be an encounter with orcs. Instead, the players dictate this. If they want to have a good rousing fight, they'll "check to see if anyone is set to ambush us ahead". If they want some cool social interaction, they'll "keep our eyes open for any groups of travelers going our way on the road". If they want to be heros they'll "check the ravine for any wagons that might have been ambushed by the orcs known to roam this pass" [n.b.: such a statement wouldn't require that it had previously been established that there were orcs in the area, that it was a major trade route, that the orcs were a problem, or that there was even a pass.]. If they just want to get where they're going withouthaving to deal with a side encounter, it'll be "we keep our eyes open for possible orc ambushes so that we can avoid them". And if they want politics it'll be "We keep our eyes open for any orcs with bodypaint or clothes that indicate rank, so that we can approach them appropriately without having to fight them."

Does that make any more sense? It's not supposed to be about outguessing the GM, or twisting the players' words--it's supposed to be about the players getting the type of game they want. Now, this may not be the sort of RPG you want--that's fine. I just want you to reject it for what it is, not because of a misapprehension brought on by a poor example on my part.

Then as for your assertions about rules lite vs. rules heavy, I think you are missing a significant point. Listing off a whole bunch of games and saying they are "rules lighter" than D&D doesn't tell us much if nobody plays those games.

Only a few on the list would I consider significant games (as in ones I have either A) played, B) Seen at cons, or C)known anyone who played). If the majority of your listed "rules light" games have no audience (and a large chunk are out of print at that), then they aren't really of much consequence in the discussion.

By applying some measure of balance as to number of people who actually play the games in question, you would likely have a much different spectrum.

Yes, you would. Are you sure it's a more meaningful measure, however? Doesn't it make more sense to attempt an "objective" measure of the complexity of various rulesets, and point out that the median, mean, and mode are most definitely *not* aligned, rather than skew the whole graph so that fairly disparate games end up close together when they happen to be rules-light, but far apart when they happen to be rules-medium?

 

[d4]

Yes, you would. Are you sure it's a more meaningful measure, however? Doesn't it make more sense to attempt an "objective" measure of the complexity of various rulesets, and point out that the median, mean, and mode are most definitely *not* aligned, rather than skew the whole graph so that fairly disparate games end up close together when they happen to be rules-light, but far apart when they happen to be rules-medium?

i think the telling thing here is that although there may be quite a number of "rules-light" systems out there, it seems that the fewer "rules-heavy" ones get played more. perhaps that suggests that while, on average, roleplaying game designers prefer "rules-light", roleplaying game players prefer "rules-heavy"? i don't know if that's necessarily a fair assessment to make, however, considering D&D namebrand recognition and consequent large percentage of players (especially new players). (in other words, are all those people playing D&D because they enjoy it better than they would other systems, or because they simply haven't heard of other systems?)

thanks for the extended explanation of Trollbabe. it doesn't sound like my cup of tea but the design intent is intriguing. one thought: it seems (from your admittedly brief description) that so much decision-making has been taken out of the GM's hands into the players' that it could almost be played without a GM at all. interesting.

one question, woodelf: in what way would you say AD&D2e was more "narrativist" than 3e? you mentioned that earlier, and i can't think of anything off of the top of my head myself. which elements were you thinking of?

 

[buzzard]

First, please don't discount an innovative game because i like or advocate it, or because of a single quote without context (which, when you point it out that way, i see isn't the best example for demonstrating how Trollbabe is intended to play).

You advocacy of a system does not impact my view of it one way or the other. I'd try it before I'd judge it. Your initial description, though, certainly gave me a bad impression.

Does that make any more sense? It's not supposed to be about outguessing the GM, or twisting the players' words--it's supposed to be about the players getting the type of game they want. Now, this may not be the sort of RPG you want--that's fine. I just want you to reject it for what it is, not because of a misapprehension brought on by a poor example on my part.

OK, Id have to say that wan't my cup of tea. In any case you are making calls about D&D DMs which aren't necessarily true when you talk about the encounter having to be combat. Many encounters in D&D don't have to be combat (though, of course they often end up that way). The player intent is still tranlated by virtue of how the adversaries react to the player's actions. The Trollbabe system as you describe it seems to try to elicit a totally subjective universe which reacts solely based on the player's whims. I don't think I'd like that at all (that might be a touch harsh, but it how it has come across).

Yes, you would. Are you sure it's a more meaningful measure, however? Doesn't it make more sense to attempt an "objective" measure of the complexity of various rulesets, and point out that the median, mean, and mode are most definitely *not* aligned, rather than skew the whole graph so that fairly disparate games end up close together when they happen to be rules-light, but far apart when they happen to be rules-medium?

OK I move to the land of Extremia. It has a population of a million people. Ten people have wealth in the billions. Everyone else dirt poor to middle class. Would it be meaningful to use those ten people as indicative examples of the standard of living or of the way in which day to day existance is in Extremia? I think in most cases comparisons of the middle class vs. poor would yield more usable results.

Outlying cases are generally dismissed in most any scientific study. At the very least they weighted to allow for their rarity.

To understand the experience of Mr. Generic Gamer, including games which he has never seen nor heard of will not make for any useful comparisons. Could we, for example. include systems which people have never published? How about ones which people have just though of and not written down? What exactly is our criteria for validity? I don't happen to believe merely being published merits a whole lot of notice if the game never gets played.

buzzard

 

[woodelf]

i think the telling thing here is that although there may be quite a number of "rules-light" systems out there, it seems that the fewer "rules-heavy" ones get played more. perhaps that suggests that while, on average, roleplaying game designers prefer "rules-light", roleplaying game players prefer "rules-heavy"? i don't know if that's necessarily a fair assessment to make, however, considering D&D namebrand recognition and consequent large percentage of players (especially new players). (in other words, are all those people playing D&D because they enjoy it better than they would other systems, or because they simply haven't heard of other systems?)

I agree: the current population of RPers seems to prefer more rulesy systems. OTOH, there's a significant fraction that gets further and further to the rules-light end of the spectrum as they get more experienced (look at the Forge, frex, where the balance is skewed the other ways: dozens of very-rules-light games, played by lots of people, and then The Riddle of Steel, quite popular, but probably the only rules-heavy (or maybe rules-medium--haven't had a chance to read it for myself) game in regular play/discussion there). A more important concern to me, however, stems from my experiences with getting "non-roleplayers" into RPGs. Namely, by college age, most people seem to have at least heard of RPGs (at least in the form of D&D), and a significant portion of those who don't play them have actually tried them or acquired enough 2nd-hand info to make a semi-informed decision to reject them. Especially in this latter group (those who've rejected RPGs), my success rate (and, from what i've heard, the success rates of many others) is pretty much 0 with games as complex as Storyteller or D&D3E or more. Contrariwise, about half the people i introduce with a rules-light game get hooked, and another third decide they like RPGs but not enough to make them a regular happening. Which leads me to a hypothesis (that several others have put forth independently): There is a large untapped market for RPGs that specifically rejects the D&D-esque RPG experience, rather than the more-general RPing experience. "D&D-esque" in this context has two meanings: First, it refers to the fact that for a lot of the non-RPers, D&D is the only RPG they are at all familiar with. Second, it refers to the fact that most (all?) of the major-selling RPGs are of a similar model and complexity to D&D, mechanically, so even a moderate familiarity won't change the perceptions. Both of these factors combine to lead those unfamiliar with RPGs to assume that specific elements of these games (complex, detailed, mathematical, simulation-/game-driven) are inherent to the RPG form. Therefore, it doesn't occur to the outsider that doesn't enjoy one RPG (whetherfrom description, reading, or playing) that it might not be "RPGs" they dislike, but the specifics of the game they played. [Most can recognize that the genre/setting might be the issue, if they are, because of familiarity with the notion of genre/setting in other media (movies, books, TV). But to recognize the mechanical element, you have to first equate "RPG" with "sport" (of which there are many varieties) rather than "baseball" (within which variance is fairly narrow)--and since RPGs are generally seen as a small subcategory of "game", most tend to see it the same way they would "Monopoly"--sure, there are dozens of variations, but they're all pretty much the same game with different pictures on the board.] I personally suspect that D&D is reaching an asymptotic limit in terms of market saturation: there are only so many people who can be interested in the activity, and a significnt fraction of them already know about it and are playing. To get more players beyond that point is going to require appealing to those who have rejected D&D, rather than those who play it but are dissatisfied with it. And, to the degree that my experiences are valid, that's gonna mean something fairly different from D&D--and probably something that won't appeal to those who play most current popular RPGs.

Oh, i should add that i, too, fell victim to this at one point. That is, i played RPGs for nearly a decade before i found the right games for me. And, i might add, during this period i read every RPG review and RPG ad in Dragon, and just about every article, regardless of game system--back when it wasn't a house organ but pretty much *the* RPG magazine, with lots of content for lots of systems. My personal bugaboo was combat--i always hated combat in RPGs. Or, at best, tolerated it. I'd usually play combat-incapable characters (to the degree the system would allow it) and skip it altogether. As a GM, i could at least improvise large portions of it, and that helped a bit. But i still felt obligated to play by the same rules as the players, and roll all the dice, and only fudge when necessary. Over the years, i grew increasingly dissatisfied with AD&D, especially the combat, and all the houserules and options and Dragon articles weren't helping. And it's not like i was only familiar with (A)D&D--i'd played or run Twilight: 2000, Marvel Super Heroes (the only game under which combat was tolerable), Talislanta, Rolemaster, Top Secret, Top Secret/SI, Star Frontiers, Boot Hill, and probably some others i'm forgetting. You'll note that, with the exception of MSH, those are all pretty similar games mechanically--and even with MSH we pretty much played it the same way, completely missing the playstyle written into the rules. And it never occurred to me that there was another way to play, despite my dissatisfaction with things, because of my "broad" experience and the similarity of all the games i'd tried. Even the games i read about in Dragon (such as in reviews) seemed the same to me. In hindsight, i probably would've loved Star Wars [D6], but i don't think i could conceive that the system would be enough different to make a difference. Ars Magica was a breakthrough for me, revealing a whole new playstyle that had never occured to me. But it only partly solved the combat problem--combats were less common due to the scenarios we used and over quicker due to the higher lethality. I still didn't enjoy them, they just took less of the play time. Then, i read about this new game called Over the Edge. Some combination of te review and the fact that it was written by one of the co-authors of Ars Magica got me to special order it sight-unseen. It was a conceptual break-through for me. Specifically, the optional gestalt combat system. Roll the dice once and determine the eventual general result (degree of success/failure). Then narrate the combat--no dice, no numbers, no stats, no hit points, just narration. Suddenly, combat was fun. Not because i won more, but because the fight wasn't interrupted or bogged down by the mechanical resolution. So, if i could play numerous RPGs (not all from one publisher), some of them relatively cutting-edge (MSH and Ars Magica, both when newish), and read about dozens more (including the mechanical insights gained from reading articles for them), and religiously read Dragon articles on how to GM/play the game (which really *were* quite good), and spend considerable effort on houserules, and play with numerous groups, and still be conceptually trapped into one model of what an RPG is, i don't think it's at all unreasonable to think that those who've only had cursory exposure to a couple sessions of one game system with one group might make the same mistake. It's also easy for me to see how someone could thus mistakenly reject RPGs--if my disenjoyment of combat had been a bit stronger, or i'd been the player (rather than GM) in a game that had more combat, or i hadn't enjoyed the other aspects so greatly--or i'd been interested in sports or some other time-sucking group activity--i might've given up before i found a solution, rather than continually trying to fix the game experience.

thanks for the extended explanation of Trollbabe. it doesn't sound like my cup of tea but the design intent is intriguing. one thought: it seems (from your admittedly brief description) that so much decision-making has been taken out of the GM's hands into the players' that it could almost be played without a GM at all. interesting.

Probably. I haven't read it closely, so i don't know if it advocates this. It does appear to use one-player, one-GM play, rather than group play, as its baseline.

one question, woodelf: in what way would you say AD&D2e was more "narrativist" than 3e? you mentioned that earlier, and i can't think of anything off of the top of my head myself. which elements were you thinking of?

The short version is, AD&D2 didn't have much support for narrative playstyles. Rather, it simply had a lack of opposition to them. In several areas, it simply failed to provide a gamist interpretation (or, really, any interpretation) for a chunk of rules, thus leaving the group free to do whatever they wanted, including handle it more narratively. In a few areas, it was similarly pretty much rules-less, but encouraged a narrativist solution by what text *was* there. I've got to go do some other stuff, so i'll stick to two very cursory examples.

Combat: By having a fairly abstract system, without the tactical detail of D&D3E (or GURPS, to take a contemporary), it allowed you to more easily fill in the gaps in a narrative style, if you so chose. I know the groups i was in generally played the combat sto what was cool, rather than realistic or within the character's capabilities--not that we radically ignored character stats, but just that we'd shade in the direction of the dramatically-satisfying, and the looser framework game us more room to do this than D&D3E does. (see the "I like 3E, but i miss..." thread for a great example of this, relating to the movement/action rules.)

Magic item creation: There basically wasn't a system for it. However, if you actually read what *is* there, you'll note that it speaks in fairyl dramatist lingo: it talks about using quests for mystical ingredients, and talks as much or more about the RPing/story opportunities such a quest provides, than about the importance of "proper" ingredients (simulation) or an appropriate challenge (game). Spell creation is much the same way, with just cursory nods to gamism (must spend X money during the research) and simulationism (must have a lab--though the rules don't actually go into anything about what should/must be in that lab--it's really just a gamist money sink).