D&D General Story Now, Skilled Play, and Elephants

[Aging Bard]

DEFCON 1's points are mostly solid, but I'll add some clarifications:

1) 5e combat is also nothing but a series of decisions, die rolls to resolve those decisions, and referral to the rules to interpret the die rolls. So combat has a "Skills Manual" we all agree to use. The question is why do other subsystems not have such rules.

2) In older editions of D&D like 1e, we DID have such subsystems: outdoor hexcrawls, mounted travel and combat, aerial travel and combat, shipboard travel and combat, etc. By the end of 1e you had the Dungeoneer's and Wilderness Survival Guides which WERE big "Skills Manuals" of things you could do in the dungeon or wilderness. The verdict of history is that lots of players did not enjoy those subsystems the way they enjoyed combat.

So the only remaining question is why does combat work but not other subsystems, and there is no one answer. Perhaps combat is well-designed and the other subsystems weren't. I suspect a big part of the answer is that players want a cinematic experience: eliminate those parts of the game that would not show up in a movie. So we don't watch people travel, eat, answer nature's call, or sleep in most cases, except in short scenes where some other aspect of the adventure is advanced.

As a 1e player and wargamer, I'm a simulationist, and am happy to play all those other parts of the game and learn the rules. But history says I'm in the minority, and that's OK. I know I'm not alone (Level Up is coming, after all), but our views are niche today.

 

[Charlaquin]

Smells like waffles in here!

 

[FrogReaver]

I have a counter hypothesis. People are looking for other gaming systems because they are starting to get bored of 5e and they want systems that resolve some of the problems they are finding with 5e.

 

[Voadam]

I was really expecting a discussion of how we are all blind sages describing skilled play from our own limited experiences coming at the game from different directions to describe the same thing wildly differently.

 

[Voadam]

I don't think RPGs focus on or try to focus on solely the parts that CRPGs don't do well.

You want the best whole play experience you can get so TRPGs should not ignore the things that CRPGs do well like combat mechanics and such. I think D&D combat should try to be a fun easy to use system with some dynamic parts and interesting choices to accommodate as best it can player tactical desires as well as beer and pretzel just want to roll some dice desires and character story actor desires who just want to not have their characters die.

 

[Shiroiken]

• passive scores (this is useful, but needs a design rev)

Please note that JC is full of crap on this. Nothing in the rules actually says how to use Passive skills, except 1 example of using Stealth against Passive Perception. I use Mike Mearls system, where the DM rolls against the Passive score, rather than just comparing static numbers. This system works really well, while still rewarding players for having a high score.

• group checks (broken as printed)

How so? I use group checks all the time as a replacement for skill challenges.

• collaboration or help (clunky and sometimes irrelevant in current form)

This is the one I usually have an issue with, granting advantage excessively. Perhaps you have these two confused.

• complex skill checks (4e failed to solve this, but showed some options)

Complex skill checks are like complex traps; some people like them while others don't. I'm personally happy that skill challenges are dead.

• contests

Contested checks are already a thing, and I don't feel they need to be made any more complicated.

• perhaps some sort of exertion resource (fatigue, hold, whatever)

Like wounds, this is something that hasn't been part of D&D, and probably won't be. It adds an extra level of complication for minimal payoff.

• process and result support for hazards
• nuanced outcomes that can propel the emergent narrative (success at a cost, degrees of failure, etc)
• common situations (much as you suggest) and more detail on time and cost for these

The problem is that most of these are going to be situation specific. As I said, a few examples to extrapolate from is really the best that can be provided.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I don't think its really an interest in "Story Now" specifically, so much as a skirmish over understandings of it produced by that recent blog post, and emerging from other threads where people who like it argue with people who don't about whether or not it can do the thing the thread is discussing. You'll notice they always dissolve into arguments about terminology and whether detractors have an adequate understanding of the Story Now movement and whether their understanding arises from 'doing it wrong' and whether its proponents see any differences between their game play and the thing being discussed in the thread.

Like, it came up in the Skilled Play thread because someone brought up their opinion that they don't see a difference between juggling agendas in DW while the characters attempt to solve problems, and Skill-based play in RPGs that aren't a part of the Story Now tradition.

It came up in the bespoke genre RPG thread because DND players were expressing irritation with other people poo-pooing their use of the DND system for different things, and pushing them to adopt other games in a fairly narrow interpretation of the consequences of the truth that 'System Matters'

It came up in the players establishing facts about the world thread because Story Now games have a reputation for it and some posters wanted to police the discussion of the ramifications player establishment of facts could have on the game, according with the beliefs of that movement.

It came up in the GM's notes thread because the systems discourage the kind of GM prep found in other games (with extensive 'Story Before' lore write ups) so it was one of the strongly held positions on the idea of GM notes.

Generally speaking, its mostly come up lately in a context where its benefits are being evangelized and pushed as a new normative viewpoint in threads tangentially related to it, putting aside the thread about discussing it founded directly after the six cultures of play thread, and that thread itself, gradually taking it over by insisting the other posters simply don't understand them and that its actually an all-encompassing philosophy.

Honestly, I want more neo-trad threads, a lot of its 'problems' seem to result from underdevelopment so I think it would benefit more from the theory crafting than yet another lecture on how Story Now is actually a perfect fit for every gamer and game, and how anyone who thinks otherwise must be misguided.

 

[Aldarc]

Smells like waffles in here!

I like waffles too.

 

[Shardstone]

Smells like waffles in here!

What does this mean?

 

[Asisreo]

It means @Charlaquin is having breakfast