The D&D Experience (or, All Roads lead to Rome)

[LostSoul]

Ok, I don't see anything I particularly disagree with. But, I'm certainly not at all invested in forge game-theory, so perhaps I'm not catching the full context there.

I was trying to show you the blog post that really pushed my 4E hack forward. When I started trying to hack the system, that blog post was the guiding light. That's why I call my hack "Fiction First".

It doesn't really have anything to do with the ongoing conversation, but I thought you might find it interesting. (It's very light on the Forge jargon as well.) If you want to discuss how rules can effect immersion, I'd be all for that.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Here's a question, I'm especially interested in responses from Mercurius, Hussar, and Pemerton as I've disagreed with you all in this thread (or the other one) and found your insights helpful. (Of course, and it should go without saying, anyone should feel free to respond. )

Hypothetical:
If WotC sells the rights of D&D to another company and they then make 5e, how different would it have to be for it to not feel like D&D?

Also, it would be "officially" D&D, but could they change it enough so that you might say "5e is not D&D"?



For instance, and in an extreme example WotC sells D&D to Firestone Tires. (Who knows why those madmen buy it.) They release tires with dragon and dungeon designs on them and call it Dungeons and Dragons, 5e.

I'd say that 5e is NOT D&D in that case.


From you guys, though, I'm more interested in the least extreme example of what you might consider "doesn't feel like" and "isn't".

 

[Mercurius]

Well Aberzanzorax, it would still have to be a tabletop role-playing game. There is a line where "tabletop rpg" becomes something else, whether a board game (e.g. Castle Ravenloft) or a MMO (World of Warcraft). Now one could say that Castle Ravenloft is D&D, or feels like D&D (or WoW for that matter), and I think that is true to a degree and in the broad sense of the term.

So I would say we really have two definitions: the broad definition, which includes Castle Ravenloft and a D&D-esque MMO, and a narrow definition, which is specific to the tabletop RPG. I assume that you are referring to the latter.

As I've said, I'm a big umbrella kind of guy so 5E would have to be significantly different to no longer feel like D&D to me. As long as I'm rolling dice (especially the d20) and have a character sheet with a certain amount of recognizable statistics (especially the six ability scores, hit points, and armor class), and most important, as long as I am participating in an imagination space with certain iconic D&D themes, characters, and monsters, than it is going to feel like D&D to me. It doesn't matter if it is Vancian magic or not, as long as there is some magic, and there are iconic spells like magic missile, dispel magic, and fireball, as well as magic items like the bag of holding, the vorpal sword, potions of healing, magical rings, wands, staves, and rods, etc.

The specific configuration of the game as expressed through the rules doesn't matter as much as the gestalt that it creates, namely as it is experienced in the shared imagination space. The configuration of rules does matter, but there is a lot of room for flexibility, and as long as the effect is that of creating and supporting a D&D experience of imagination and adventure.

 

[pemerton]

But if you want to get inside the head of people who don't like 4E, in either an effort to either sway them or just get the best of both worlds in later efforts, you should keep in mind that there are also plenty of us who get the value of story and still see other systems as simple better at getting there.

<snip>

To many of us, 4E simply spends more time in the mini game district of Rome.

Sure. But I also sometimes feel that some of the 4e critics are saying "4e is a bad game" when maybe what they really mean is "non-simulationist games are bad games" or even "I don't like non-simulationist games".

It's like the "balanced encounters" line in your sig - if I understand it right (in the context of your many posts on and around the issue) you are objecting to "balanced encounters" as interfering with the fiction, because they make the fiction - the gameworld - serve the game. (I assume that you also dislike the idea of the pass/fail cycle in HeroQuest - restated by Robin Laws also in 4e's DMG2 - on similar grounds.)

I entirely agree that 4e makes metagame take a predominant place that it doesn't in (eg) 3E. The key is to not let this undermine the place of the fiction, but instead to make this serve the fiction - only because it is metagame-driven fiction, the role of those at the table is more like "creators" and less like "discoverers". (Of coures, if the creation is at least partly sub-conscious, there can be the experience of the creation "writing itself".) The GM, in particular, in running the gameworld, is asking less of "what should happend now, given how the world is" and more of "what should happen now, given how the people at the game table are". But in good non-simulationist play, the players will still be responding to "what is happening now in the gameworld". And I think that's what makes it an RPG, and makes it different from an MMO.

BryonD, you might want to check out this blog post and its sister posts: anyway: A Moment of Judgment

Thanks - good link. It also gives me a better handle on some aspects of your 4e hack.

I found the discussion in the comments about using risk rather than resources to pay for advantage. If I understood it right, this is how I tend to run p 42 - risks in exchange for advantage.

 

[pemerton]

Aberzanzorax, it's hard for me to answer your question.

After having been playing mostly Rolemaster for many years, 4e feels like D&D to me because of the d20, the hit points and the polyhedral damage dice. (Rolemaster is all d10s).

But once you get past these basic similarities - d20s to hit, longswords do d8s, etc, and also the names of classes, spells and monsters - it doesn't feel too much like AD&D or Basic in play. Which is for me a good thing, for others not so much.

A future edition which was still a fantasy RPG with d20s to hit, longswords doing d8s, and that used a lot of the same names, would still probably feel to me as much like D&D as 4e does. If it swung back in a hard simulationist manner, perhaps more so.

 

[pemerton]

Double post deleted.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sure. But I also sometimes feel that some of the 4e critics are saying "4e is a bad game" when maybe what they really mean is "non-simulationist games are bad games" or even "I don't like non-simulationist games".

I agree with you here, and I have to admit that I credit the discussions around 4e for helping me better understand what I want (and what I do not want) in a role-playing game!

I would further posit that the "D&D Experience" is related, in no small part, to the degree of simulation....at least for some people. And, hence, a game which is not "fiction first" (as LostSoul calls his hack!) simply doesn't feel like it shares that experience, to them.

Indeed, in my own case, while I am willing to accept that 4e is D&D, it doesn't satisfy the "D&D itch". Some 4e materials can be easily ported into a system that does satisfy my gaming desires. Of course, so can Harn and MERP materials! But the 4e materials, to my mind, are more clearly of the same family as the D&D game I started on, and hence D&D, to me.

(I hope that was clear and follow-able! )

RC

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

"4e is a bad game"

Some people ARE saying that. The trick is discerning who is saying it when.

Because, again, calling a game "bad" is a POV construct, that, while it may contain objective metrics, is ultimately a subjective opinion being expressed through the imperfect conduit of language.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Aside: if you're still reading this thread, could whomever it was who posted a link to online resources regarding HERO D&D sims just post that link here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/301174-hero-d-d-sim-campaign.html

Thanks in advance!

I mean, I can do it solo, but I've had nibbles and it would be cool to get it up & running ASAP.

 

[BryonD]

Sure. But I also sometimes feel that some of the 4e critics are saying "4e is a bad game" when maybe what they really mean is "non-simulationist games are bad games" or even "I don't like non-simulationist games".

I'm sure some of them are.

It's like the "balanced encounters" line in your sig - if I understand it right (in the context of your many posts on and around the issue) you are objecting to "balanced encounters" as interfering with the fiction, because they make the fiction - the gameworld - serve the game. (I assume that you also dislike the idea of the pass/fail cycle in HeroQuest - restated by Robin Laws also in 4e's DMG2 - on similar grounds.)

I strongly object to balanced encounter as being the priority.

But yes, the rules should serve the game and the game should serve the sense of being in the story.

I realize you are going to take exception to me saying 4E doesn't do this. But it is not a question of claiming 4E is the antithesis of what I want. It is more a matter of why should I play a game that gets a B- when I have a solid A option. (And, honestly, there are several B+ and A- alternatives out there as well).

The rules are not the same for npcs as they are for pcs.
The difficulty of a task is based not on the task but on the character level.
All wizards get better at climbing.
The black knights and pirate captains ACs are both based first on challenge level, not what they are.
Square fireballs and 1-1-1 diagonals.
The list goes on and on.
And I understand the point of the changes.
And it really isn't the changes themselves so much as the driving philosophy that led to them and colors the entire game experience.
And I don't claim they ruin anything, but they detract a bit at a time. In the end it is B-.

You can say I'm not describing your game.
But I know my opinion.
And I know statements made by design team members praising the specific things I don't care for.
And I know I've debated many 4E fans who were praising the very things I don't care for.
And I know I've talked to a lot of people who dislike 4E for the same reasons that I don't choose it.


I am not familiar with the Heroquest pass/fail cycle, and have not read the 4E DMG2. I will simply readily agree that there are games I like and games I don't.


It may be informative to note that I play some board games, but not often at all. I don't play warhammer fantasy battles. I don't play DDM. I own Arkham Horror, I think it is fun. I have not played it in well over a year. It may be fair to say that I am not a gamer. I am a story-teller role player.

People gripe about 3E prep time. I enjoy prepping, both direct plot and the world at large, AT LEAST, as much as I enjoy sitting around the table with friends. When I do play I enjoy
- the social activity with friends
- the being in character role play parts
- and, probably rather narcissistically, I enjoy experiencing other people responding to and impacting the world and story that I have created.

My games feature quite regular combat, I think they are typical in that regard. I enjoy combat, and I enjoy the tactical game. But I absolutely find myself focused more on seeing how it plays out, and how that impacts the larger story.

I entirely agree that 4e makes metagame take a predominant place that it doesn't in (eg) 3E. The key is to not let this undermine the place of the fiction, but instead to make this serve the fiction - only because it is metagame-driven fiction, the role of those at the table is more like "creators" and less like "discoverers". (Of coures, if the creation is at least partly sub-conscious, there can be the experience of the creation "writing itself".) The GM, in particular, in running the gameworld, is asking less of "what should happend now, given how the world is" and more of "what should happen now, given how the people at the game table are". But in good non-simulationist play, the players will still be responding to "what is happening now in the gameworld". And I think that's what makes it an RPG, and makes it different from an MMO.

I can role play in 4E.
I know you can role play in 4E.
We can both tell the exact same stories in 4E that I love telling in 3E.

It is not a question of whether or not I CAN prevent the issues from undermining the story. I know I could.

But the question is, Why should I bother?
I have a better game. It is that simple.

I said this in one of these threads recently. If I had never heard of RPGs and someone showed me 4E, I am certain I would instantly think it was the most awesome game ever. I am also certain I would soon learn of even better games and move on.

I don't think your work-arounds would budge my rating up to B+ even. I think you are mostly just describing things I'd take for granted and are built into the B-. But even if they did, I've got an A sitting right here.
I'm going to play that.

I think my comments above about the larger picture offer some reply here as well.

Yes, in non-simulationist games the people at the table can be "in the story" just the same. But the "just the same" stuff is, by definition, irrelevant to choice of which system is preferable. The pro-simualtionist approach provides, to me, a much more rewarding reflection of the world that we are otherwise equally imagining.