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

[Lalato]

And my response to that is... "So What!"

Does it matter that there are other RPGs that share the same underlying concepts as D&D? Why on earth do I care if these other games are similar to D&D? Are we discussing these other games? No! We're discussing D&D.

All of these things I described I can do in D&D... and have done in every single version of D&D that I've ever played (going back to 1981). Either you agree that I can do all those things in each version of D&D or you don't agree. Which is it? It doesn't matter whether I can do those things elsewhere. We're talking about D&D.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

It's just that on a scale of 100% fiction first (=fantasy novel) to 100% mechanics first (=abstract board game), I feel 4E is a matter of degrees higher towards nakedly obvious mechanics first.

With apologies, but, could I change that last bit from "nakedly obvious mechanics first" to simply transparent and unapologetic?

Because, honestly, I think that's a major sticking point with some people. It's not so much that it's radically different than what came before, but rather it's very, very in your face about it. There's no attempt to dress up the mechanics at all. We know that monster X looks the way it does because of the mechanics. I would argue that earlier editions try to gloss over a lot of this by dressing it up as fiction first but not really making major substantive decisions based on narrative rather than mechanics.

In the cases where narrative first was the design decision, it largely failed - broken mechanics, restrictions that were largely ignored (time based training for entry into PrC's and the like are a prime example here - either the PrC was ignored, or the restriction was), that sort of thing.

That might just be my personal biases intruding though.

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.

This I think is spot on. 100% true and well put.

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.

I think that trying to find a definition that includes D&D and only D&D is doomed to failure. Considering how much D&D has influenced so many other games, in particular anything published pre-1990, it's innevitable that many of the elements one finds in D&D are also going to be found in other RPG's.

I think it's very telling that you name a number of games that share a similar time frame to D&D for their first entrance into the hobby. D&D set the stage for RPG's and for a very long time, a game could be judged by how much it was like D&D or how much it tried to be different from D&D.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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.

Call me a heretic, but ...

So what?

What is so damn important about separating us D&D players over here from those Harn players over there?

I mean, hell, I've played Runequest (briefly), MERPS, GURPS, Ars Magica, Shadowrun, Star Wars (in 3 flavors), barely missed a Savage Worlds game, etc., and 5 flavors of D&D.

They prety much all look like part of the Empire from where I'm sitting; sure, maybe one's more Gallic and the other is Germanic, but there's aqueducts, olive oil, and legionaires patrolling.

Is it really that important to draw all these lines between us? I mean, when you come right down to it, we're all of us pretty far out on the margins.

 

[Nagol]

Frankly, I agree that separating the experience found by D&D players from the rest of the RPG poplation is exceedingly difficult if at all possible.

The thread began with the premise of seeking the "soul" of D&D.

I'm still seeking to see if anyone can present something -- anything -- that would represent such a essence that is a univeral D&D experience that only applies to D&D.

So far no luck.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

I think that trying to find a definition that includes D&D and only D&D is doomed to failure. Considering how much D&D has influenced so many other games, in particular anything published pre-1990, it's innevitable that many of the elements one finds in D&D are also going to be found in other RPG's.

I think it's very telling that you name a number of games that share a similar time frame to D&D for their first entrance into the hobby. D&D set the stage for RPG's and for a very long time, a game could be judged by how much it was like D&D or how much it tried to be different from D&D.

That's just me showing my age. I could just as easily said the Eldritch Roleplaying System and (to a lesser extent) Desolation.

Eldritch RPG
Desolation, A Post-Apocalyptic Fantasy Roleplaying Game from Greymalkin Designs

 

[pawsplay]

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.

That's not necessarily true. For instance, a rules-first system can require a lot of adjudication if the game events aren't successfully operationalized. As an example, 3e specifies that you can make a melee attack against an opponent up to 5 feet away. Imagine you are fighting an opponent who has a 15 ft. reach with his tail. If you ready an attack, can you attack the opponent when they attack you? A lot of people assume, yes; if the opponent attacks you, they are within 5 feet. On the other hand, other people took this to mean 5 feet from their square, not their appendage.

On the other hand, a fiction-first approach can yield superior results to rules-first games in scnerios where the rules don't work very well. For instance, in almost any game system every published, a fiction-first approach will yield more easily adjudicated results than a rules-first approach when a normal human is at ground zero of a nuclear blast. It is likely to be uncontrovertible that someone at ground zero is dead. Attempting to use any mechanical system to determine that fact, however good the mechanics are, opens up the possibility of ambiguity, however small that possibility.

 

[Nagol]

That's not necessarily true. For instance, a rules-first system can require a lot of adjudication if the game events aren't successfully operationalized. As an example, 3e specifies that you can make a melee attack against an opponent up to 5 feet away. Imagine you are fighting an opponent who has a 15 ft. reach with his tail. If you ready an attack, can you attack the opponent when they attack you? A lot of people assume, yes; if the opponent attacks you, they are within 5 feet. On the other hand, other people took this to mean 5 feet from their square, not their appendage.

I'd argue that determining how an rule ambiguity will be resolved isn't fiction-first; it's removing an ambiguity in a poorly word rule.

On the other hand, a fiction-first approach can yield superior results to rules-first games in scnerios where the rules don't work very well. For instance, in almost any game system every published, a fiction-first approach will yield more easily adjudicated results than a rules-first approach when a normal human is at ground zero of a nuclear blast. It is likely to be uncontrovertible that someone at ground zero is dead. Attempting to use any mechanical system to determine that fact, however good the mechanics are, opens up the possibility of ambiguity, however small that possibility.

And that's why many people like fiction-first; it increases their feeling of versimilitude.

One particularly infamous session in an Aftermath campaign I ran had all the PCs in the primary damage zone of a defensive grenade. A lot of the enemy were in the secondary zone. The damage was sufficent to kill the PCs, but the game system offers a 10% chance of turning that damage into a flesh wound. All 6 PCs made that roll -- in the open with everyone watching. Every enemy went down.

Villains and Vigilantes nukes were particulaly silly with a large nuke doing 4d100 damage.

 

[pawsplay]

I'd argue that determining how an rule ambiguity will be resolved isn't fiction-first; it's removing an ambiguity in a poorly word rule.

Every rule is poorly worded for some case.

 

[Lanefan]

Let's look at Lightning Bolt to see the difference

In fiction first (1e), a Lightning Bolt bounced when it couldn't penetrate a barrier, turned into a globe of destructive energy underwater, and generally interacted with the game world as the creator's/DM's believed electricity would including suggestions to reduce saving throws if the party is standing in water, etc. The Lightning bolt is a manifestation in the world as is affected by the world as much as it affects the world.

Also, the interaction could take place over there; the Bolt didn't have to start at the caster but could start anywhere within range and extend from there directly away from caster.

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.

And by RAW has to start at the caster; thus making the globe-in-water interaction somewhat self-defeating to said caster.

Fireball is another good example of how interactions have changed; IMO not for the better.

Lan-"33 10x10x10' cubes is a surprisingly large volume"-efan

 

[Lalato]

Frankly, I agree that separating the experience found by D&D players from the rest of the RPG poplation is exceedingly difficult if at all possible.

The thread began with the premise of seeking the "soul" of D&D.

I'm still seeking to see if anyone can present something -- anything -- that would represent such a essence that is a univeral D&D experience that only applies to D&D.

So far no luck.

Why does it have to ONLY apply to D&D. This makes no sense. Something can both be universal to D&D and just happen to encompass games that aren't D&D. That doesn't mean that they aren't representative of a D&D experience. I think all you're doing is moving the goalposts. Every time someone describes something that is a part of D&D, some folks just keep trying to find a way that it isn't ONLY D&D.

That, to me, makes the whole endeavor an exercise in futility. As has been noted before. D&D was the Alpha of the RPG movement. There have been many copycats (some more blatant than others). Does the fact that there are copycats somehow make the D&D experience less real for the rest of us?

There is NO aspect of any version D&D that isn't similar to some other game. That doesn't mean that we can't describe D&D and say... "Yes, that's D&D." We don't live in a perfect world of absolutes. Everything I noted about my experience of D&D is probably true of everyone's experience with D&D no matter what version they have played (I'm sure there is someone that never played with a rules lawyer out there... if so raise your hand so we can note how the exception proves the rule).

As for seeking the soul of D&D. That's part of what I was describing. The soul of D&D doesn't have to be something super specific. It can be universal... but it seems that some people don't want to accept that for some unknown reason. Everything needs to be super-defined to the nth degree... just so they can say... "Ha! This version is NOT D&D!"

Well, if that's what floats your boat, then fine. But it seems pointless to me.