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

[Gryph]

I think that Bryon and Hussar have very different internalized meanings of Narrative. Hussar's definition seems (I may be wrong) to be a plain english meaning of a narrative as the recounting of a story. With an implication that it is most concerned with the detailed events of play. From that context his examples and objections make sense to me. When telling the story or narrative of a game session, mechanics first or fiction first are nearly impossible to unentangle.

On the other hand, Bryon seems (again, I may be wrong) to be using a more specialist definition of narrative. One akin, if not identical, to the usage on the Forge. This meaning is more concerned with game design and game mastering style. As I understand that meaning, narrative means a style or design element that seeks to preserve logical internal consistency in the game world. Typically it starts from some kind of first principles used in world building. So, for example, magic is very powerful but difficult to master, therefore magic users can only use a limited number of spells per day and they require a large investment of time to prepare. So the Vancian magic system is mechanically built to emulate the world building principle.

Personally, for Bryon's meaning of narrative I prefer the term Naturalistic.

That's how I "C" it.

 

[NoWayJose]

Sure, although this leaves all the adjucation to the DM, and the game may suffer from a lack of consistency.

Player: "Why did the Gust of Wind carry me across the gap last year, but today, it won't work?"
DM: oh ya, I forgot about last year "Um, because the moon is full and affects the magic tides..."

So I assume 3E codified the rules beyond the subjectivity of DM and players for the sake of consistency. And 4E took it one step further. Somewhere there, D&D may have lost its "soul" depending on your point of view.

And that's the big difference I see in fiction-first and rules-first. The play group has more adjudication to perform in fiction first because no game model is extensive enough to cover all the corner cases and special circumstances that arise to achieve versimilitude.

Rules-first removes a lot of the adjudication to instill consistency in play even if that consitency comes at a cost in versimilitude.

Well, it's a very interesting issue with no easy answer. I also truly appreciate that this is one of few times where I've felt that I've been able to cut through into the heart of the matter with someone else on a D&D forum, rather than get sidetracked by a multitude of mini-debates.

 

[pemerton]

Hold on here. Are people saying 4e isn't "an RPG"?

I mean, I've seen it "isn't D&D" and I've seen "it doesn't feel like D&D".

Do people actually claim it isn't an RPG?

Here's a link to a recent post that describes 4e as a "tactical skirmish platform". Here's another post by the same poster that describes non-exploration play as "a game of random encounters strung together" that is "not the purpose of D&D".

meta-game first: I decide to jump because I have a jump card which I can use 3 x day and I still have one left. After I use that last jump card, I'm not going to be able to jump like that again, regardless of endurance or circumstance. In-game, I have no idea if my character thinks about jumping or not. I can attempt to justify that incongruity with some half-baked narrative, which may or may not succeed at suspending disbelief, but ultimately, it doesn't really matter because I don't have any jump cards left.

Why would you possibly say that "it doesn't really matter"? Or talk about "justifying the incongruity with some half-baked narrative"?

If you are playing a role playing game (as opposed, say, to a skirmish game) then the narrative should be crucial.

Rules-First: The Human Torch's powers are not explicitly affected by lack of oxygen or being doused with water, so they are not in the game. The logic and experience of the players in the real world does not necessarily apply to the fictional world, except where the fictional world is explicitly not codified.

I know you are providing an under-specified hypothetical here. But to what extent is it meant to bear on the difference between 4e and AD&D? In 4e, I would expect that an attempt by a player to douse a fire elemental in water would be resolved differently from an attempt by a player to douse a fire elemental in oil (page 42 sketches the relevant resolution parameters).

This also bears on Nagol's example of a lightning bolt:

In mechanical play (3e), a Lightning Bolt is a line of damage that stops at a barrier, and is unaffected by water or generally any other effect not specific to affecting the spell. The Lightning Bolt is a manifestation in the world but not really affected by the world.

Assuming that those at the table are interested in verisimilitude, and if the issue became salient, then the description of the fictional reality might be amplified to include an explanation of the behaviour of the rules manifestation.

A concrete example from actual play: as I posted not too long ago, the wizard PC in my game used Twist of Space (a level 7 encounter teleport attack) to free a person trapped inside a magical mirror. The resolution followed the guidelines on page 42 of the DMG. What should I infer from this about "rules/metagame first" vs "fiction first"?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I know you are providing an under-specified hypothetical here. But to what extent is it meant to bear on the difference between 4e and AD&D? In 4e, I would expect that an attempt by a player to douse a fire elemental in water would be resolved differently from an attempt by a player to douse a fire elemental in oil (page 42 sketches the relevant resolution parameters).

Crom's Beery Breath, man!

I am trying to establish a major difference to someone who claims that he can see none at all. The hypothetical is being used to up the level of granularity to make the difference more obvious.

Because a specific game doesn't use that same level of difference doesn't mean that there is no difference at all.

If one cannot see the stones on the beach, one might yet be able to see the boulders on the cliffs!


RC

 

[Gryph]

Crom's Beery Breath, man!

I am trying to establish a major difference to someone who claims that he can see none at all. The hypothetical is being used to up the level of granularity to make the difference more obvious.

Because a specific game doesn't use that same level of difference doesn't mean that there is no difference at all.

If one cannot see the stones on the beach, one might yet be able to see the boulders on the cliffs!


RC

Raven, you're using the same alphabet but I don't think you're talking the same language.

 

[NoWayJose]

Why would you possibly say that "it doesn't really matter"? Or talk about "justifying the incongruity with some half-baked narrative"?

If you are playing a role playing game (as opposed, say, to a skirmish game) then the narrative should be crucial.

I find your question perplexing, to be honest. I agree that the narrative should be crucial (although that's not a universal sentiment, some players just like to fight and get treasure and don't care about the story, but I'm not one of them).

But when I have 3 "jump" cards (as per the highly theoretical example being referenced, although I admit it's a terrible example for carrying the entire weight of this argument), where the number 3 is based on codified metagame priorities with no direct fictional correlation, and I have to reverse-engineer that into a plausible narrative (every single time, I may add, for every single incident of every single metagame rule), then how can it be anything but half-baked?

I thought those implications were crystal-clear for anyone who followed those series of posts between me and Nagol?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Raven, you're using the same alphabet but I don't think you're talking the same language.

Maybe.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!​

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

A concrete example from actual play: as I posted not too long ago, the wizard PC in my game used Twist of Space (a level 7 encounter teleport attack) to free a person trapped inside a magical mirror. The resolution followed the guidelines on page 42 of the DMG. What should I infer from this about "rules/metagame first" vs "fiction first"?

Primarily fiction-first since the resolution was an adjudication of what effect the in-game object expression would have on other in-game objects that was not supported by the base rules.

Fiction-first/rules-based/meta-game don't necessarily share the same axis as narrative-first since the the former are methods for the group to adjudicate in-game result and the latter is a method of injecting new situations into the game environment.

 

[Lalato]

I think a lot of folks are talking about how they play the game... not necessarily what the rules are as written. I agree that how we play the game in our own groups is probably going to differ. I also agree that how we interpret the rules may also be different. I don't think I agree that just because we interpret the rules differently or because we have different playstyles we are somehow playing something other than D&D.

In every version of D&D my characters have killed stuff and taken their loot. In every version of D&D my characters have explored the world in every form or fashion I could imagine. In every version of D&D my characters have leveled up and become more powerful. In every version of D&D I as a player have used metagame knowledge in order to affect an in-game outcome. In every version of D&D I as a player have roleplayed. In every version of D&D I've played with folks that are rules lawyers who tried to find every rules advantage they could find. In every version of D&D my characters have done things that are outside of the rules framework and required a ruling from the DM.

Granted I've not played OD&D or Holmes so it's possible that there is a version of D&D that I couldn't do any of the above. If that version of D&D exists, please let me know.

 

[Nagol]

I think a lot of folks are talking about how they play the game... not necessarily what the rules are as written. I agree that how we play the game in our own groups is probably going to differ. I also agree that how we interpret the rules may also be different. I don't think I agree that just because we interpret the rules differently or because we have different playstyles we are somehow playing something other than D&D.

In every version of D&D my characters have killed stuff and taken their loot. In every version of D&D my characters have explored the world in every form or fashion I could imagine. In every version of D&D my characters have leveled up and become more powerful. In every version of D&D I as a player have used metagame knowledge in order to affect an in-game outcome. In every version of D&D I as a player have roleplayed. In every version of D&D I've played with folks that are rules lawyers who tried to find every rules advantage they could find. In every version of D&D my characters have done things that are outside of the rules framework and required a ruling from the DM.

Granted I've not played OD&D or Holmes so it's possible that there is a version of D&D that I couldn't do any of the above. If that version of D&D exists, please let me know.

But none of that expereince is unique to D&D. You've just described my expereinces with Chivalry and Sorcery, Tunnels and Trolls, Fantasy Wargaming, and if I change 'leveled up" to "advanced" I can include Runequest, Ars Magica, Fantasy Hero, Harn, Pendragon, and a host of others in that umbrella.