D&D 5E Simulation vs Game - Where should D&D 5e aim?

[shadow]

Lately, I've been thinking about the issue of D&D as a 'simulation' vs. D&D as a game. In other words, how much the rules should aim at 'simulating' a fantasy story versus how much the rules should aim at creating a balanced game, regardless of believability. Of course, I suppose the term 'simulation' is somewhat of a misnomer because no set of rules could simulate anything completely or even believably. However, on the other hand, I have noticed that D&D 4th edition and Pathfinder seem to have moved toward the idea of rules providing game balance without a huge regard toward the story.

For example, this 'gamist' thinking is seen in the Pathfinder alchemist who can only use extracts on himself and only create a limited number of bombs per day regardless of available materials. Also this is seen in the 4e encounter/daily powers, which, although designed for game balance, do seem very 'metagamey'. Sure, you could come up with in game explanations for the limitations, but the rules as written are very vague as to why such arbitrary limitations exist outside the scope of game balance.

So where should D&D 5e aim on the spectrum of simulation vs. metagame? Should the designers aim at providing rules to simulate fantasy legends and stories and allow players to emulate the heroes of such stories at the possible expense of game balance? Should game balance be an overriding priority even when certain limitations seem completely arbitrary? Are the two goals even mutually exclusive? (If they aren't, how can game balance and play options be balanced?)

 

[howandwhy99]

With the Story vs. Game question we get right to the heart of the hobby and the roots of D&D. Is the goal of the rules to support "good" storytelling or to place players in a defined space where they are to achieve objectives?

The game can't support both without being two fundamentally different things.

First, D&D as a game includes scoring, achieving objectives, enacting strategies and tactics, and, yes, winning and losing. Characters live and die at the whims of the dice, but the odds of those die rolls are determined within the game rules. Avoiding unnecessary risks and taking actions which lead to goals tied to scoring D&D Players can succeed, which is a kind of winning.

Second, D&D as a storytelling venture removes cooperation and competition for collaboration. The players on the proverbial basketball court are there to collectively perform a narrative for the surrounding audience. Anything that inhibits what makes good narratives is contradictory to the game. Instead every one of the rules exists to promote players to create a fiction of their own desire to be "included" with the fictions of others. The basketball players look at each other and ask "What would be the coolest thing to do next?" And the game rules support an entertainment the Harlem Globetrotters might epitomize.

Game play is a fundamentally different act than storytelling. Knowing what the players around the table of D&D want is going to be difficult for a activity that is attempting to be at least both at the same time if not more.

 

[am181d]

With the Story vs. Game question we get right to the heart of the hobby and the roots of D&D. Is the goal of the rules to support "good" storytelling or to place players in a defined space where they are to achieve objectives?

The game can't support both without being two fundamentally different things.

First, D&D as a game includes scoring, achieving objectives, enacting strategies and tactics, and, yes, winning and losing. Characters live and die at the whims of the dice, but the odds of those die rolls are determined within the game rules. Avoiding unnecessary risks and taking actions which lead to goals tied to scoring D&D Players can succeed, which is a kind of winning.

Second, D&D as a storytelling venture removes cooperation and competition for collaboration. The players on the proverbial basketball court are there to collectively perform a narrative for the surrounding audience. Anything that inhibits what makes good narratives is contradictory to the game. Instead every one of the rules exists to promote players to create a fiction of their own desire to be "included" with the fictions of others. The basketball players look at each other and ask "What would be the coolest thing to do next?" And the game rules support an entertainment the Harlem Globetrotters might epitomize.

Game play is a fundamentally different act than storytelling. Knowing what the players around the table of D&D want is going to be difficult for a activity that is attempting to be at least both at the same time if not more.

I think the flaw in your logic is that role-playing is fundamentally a hybrid of game and storytelling. It's never strictly one or the other by design.

 

[the Jester]

With the Story vs. Game question we get right to the heart of the hobby and the roots of D&D. Is the goal of the rules to support "good" storytelling or to place players in a defined space where they are to achieve objectives?

The game can't support both without being two fundamentally different things.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

To me, the story emerges from game play. To others, the story trumps game play. The rules support both pretty well IMHO; most story-focused D&D players can manage to get the story they want, and others (like myself) can get the game we want.

Now, not all editions do all of the things involved in reaching these goals equally well, but I have yet to find a system that precludes my playstyle, nor one that seems to preclude more story-based games (based on published adventures and anecdotes here and elsewhere online).

 

[The Human Target]

Game.

I can add story to any rules system.

And I don't care at all about simulating "reality."

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think the flaw in your logic is that role-playing is fundamentally a hybrid of game and storytelling. It's never strictly one or the other by design.

I think the problem with that line of thinking is that while D&D does have outcomes up to and including character death, none of those outcomes are given value judgments or treated as winning or losing. A character may defeat an enemy, but that does not indicate that the player "won" that round. Likewise, a character may die, but that does not indicate that the player "lost". Because of the open-ended nature of the game, circumstances completely to the contrary may arise (where winning a battle is a failure or getting killed is a success). Moreover, the player's participation in the game and standing within it don't change regardless of those outcomes occurring.

The fundamental aspect of the game is that the player is sharing the experiences of the character; if that is satisfied, you're doing it right, regardless of what qualities those experiences have.

Lately, I've been thinking about the issue of D&D as a 'simulation' vs. D&D as a game. In other words, how much the rules should aim at 'simulating' a fantasy story versus how much the rules should aim at creating a balanced game, regardless of believability.

I think the problem is that there are different definitions of "game". Any recreational activity could be considered a game, but there's also a narrower definition.

I would consider D&D a "game" in the sense of activities you do in improvisational theater classes or of children running around pretending to be superheroes. It is a shared activity for the purposes of recreation that involves an exertion of effort and skill.

It is not a game in the sense of chess or baseball, wherein there is a defined scope to the game, goals, and a competitive element. The purpose of rules in roleplaying is not to create boundaries for a competition, but to describe outcomes that occur in a fantasy world in a simplified way that allows the participants to communicate, and perhaps to introduce an element of objectivity or externality into those outcomes.

The oddity with D&D specifically is that it arose from wargames that do meet the narrower definition of "game" and are competitive and aren't open-ended. To me, D&D will finally have achieved its purpose when it moves completely beyond those hybrid roleplaying/wargame origins and becomes purely a roleplaying game (which, to answer the question, would mean that the rules would be 100% simulation engine). Of course, some will disagree.

 

[Thaumaturge]

What I'm hoping for, and think I've seen from the playtest, is that they aim for the middle. Then they can provide me various means of edging my table one way or the other. Intense tactical rules allow me to put things in the "gamist" camp, but rules for domain management, backgrounds, flaws, and traits (or even subtracting out all "modules") all allow me to tilt things toward "story".

A theoretical "weapon vs armor type" table could fit in Next to provide a simulationist something he desires, and gamists can blithely ignore it.

Hopefully, people will be ok with optional rules they don't like coexisting with optional rules they do. History tells us, on the internet at least, this is unlikely.

Thaumaturge.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I don't think there is a scale of Simulation vs. Game. There's definitely a scale of Simulation vs. Abstraction (old-school exploration rules and 4e skill challenges are on opposite ends of that). I don't know if "Game" is one end of any scale. It's a game either way, right?

 

[jrowland]

I need to read slower. I though the thread was "Stimulate Us Game". I was intrigued. Then confused. Then disappointed. Then finally amused. Now I am bored.

 

[Minigiant]

In the middle.

Write the story then adjust the least important parts to fit the game.