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

[Dannyalcatraz]

While there may be fifteen bajillion different words that mean "a shade of red" there is actually no point where you can definitively state red becomes orange.

Does that invalidate the definition of red?

Excellent point.

To which I respond that the definition of red is not invalidated, but just as in gaming, at best, the definition of red is vague at the edges.*

But if you're talking about the soul or definition of red- or D&D- you're not talking about the periphery, you are talking about it's core. IOW, not where there is a blurring or overlap, but rather where the distinction is clear.

After all, one could say that my soul is similar to that of my father's or mother's- or even some if my friends'- but what makes it my soul is different from all of those. Or anyone else's. And that isn't at the edges of my being, but my very center.




* This is all assuming, of course, that science hasn't specified to the wavelength what constitutes red and each and every other color out there.

 

[Lalato]

As I said upthread, my soul is unique to me, as is the soul of each poster is unique to them. If presented with 2 things designated souls, you find yourself unable to distinguish between them, then you are not truly perceiving souls.

That's not about "super-definition," that's proper identification.

It's not about some kind of "gotcha!" moment. If you can't distinguish between the "soul of D&D" and the "soul of Harn," then you are not looking at the "soul" of either. At best you might be able to say you've seen the "soul of FRPGs."

Well, if you want to get right down to it. D&D has no soul. Why? It's a game. You, Danny, are not a game.

I'm not the one that claims that there is something unique about D&D. Personally, I don't think there is anything you can find in D&D that you can't find in some other RPG. Then again, D&D came before any other RPG... so all of those are really derivative in some form or fashion (even if they have radically different mechanics). So for you to ask for a definition of the soul of D&D strikes me as just that... a gotcha.

Just because D&D shares a lot of similarities with other RPGs doesn't make it any less D&D. Those other RPGs are derivative works. Of course they're going to be similar to D&D. To say otherwise would be stupid on my part.

So yeah... you may not feel like admitting it, but there are thousands of similarities between editions of D&D. That you choose to focus on this definition has little bearing on whether or not the similarities are there... and honestly it really doesn't matter one bit whether those similarities are also shared by derivative works.

 

[LostSoul]

My point is, just like the thread title says, if all roads lead to Rome, does it matter how you got there? And, beyond that, even if it does matter, can you tell the difference after the fact?

<snip>

In other words, I don't really care about how you got to the end point, it's the end point that matters and since you cannot reverse engineer the decision process after the fact, it doesn't really matter.

I think that it does matter to the people playing the game. I suspect that the decisions made by the players in the game are going to be different. The end result - that is, what the players have determined is happening in the game world - may be the same, but the decisions made to get to that point are different.

I think that's where the line is drawn; I may be wrong.

 

[pemerton]

I agree with LostSoul (as per my post #432 upthread).

That's also why I'm hestitant to try and identify a "soul" or unifying feature of D&D: different players are looking for pretty different things out of the game. Some therefore prefer different mechanics. Some use the same mechanics to different ends - for example, are random encounter tables (i) an abstraction of the habitation of and movement through the gameworld of variuos sorts of creatures, or (ii) a mechanicsm for the GM to use to introduce complication into the ongoing situation?

Even if everyone's playing a game where (from time to time) elves and dwarves enter caverns and kill things, what's going on at the table might still be pretty different.

 

[Lalato]

pemerton, I agree that the style of play is different for each group. The mechanics one group loves will be despised by another group. Even if both groups are playing the same edition.

But that doesn't change the fact that it's all still D&D.

 

[Nagol]

pemerton, I agree that the style of play is different for each group. The mechanics one group loves will be despised by another group. Even if both groups are playing the same edition.

But that doesn't change the fact that it's all still D&D.

Exept when it's not, of course. Again, a whole lot of FRPGS and some non-F versions give an indistinguishable underlying experience.

 

[Nagol]

Thanks for the reply.

<snip>

Combining this (inchoate) thought with my response to your lightning bolt example: the player of a wizard in 4e has both a certain number of "metagame tokens" - eg when they use lightning bolt underwater they are entitled to play a "metagame token" to ensure that the spell behaves as per its rules parameters, getting to narrate (or have the GM narrate) what it is about the fictional situation that brings about this result. But the player of the wizard also has fictional tools to leverage, as in my Twist of Space example.

Does the Wizard have the option to NOT play the token when firing the Lightning Bolt underwater and having a metagame event happen or is he effectively restricted to rules-first adjudication in that instance? Could the Wizard state "I cast Lightning Bolt, but I'd like it to be a (choose one from each group) (Globe/Cone/Spread) and (damage everything/stun everything) because we're in water?

Your game sounds like it introduces a large amount of fiction-first/metagame situational resolutions as your Twist of Space and Come Get It examples show. That's not particularly surprising since your situation style is narrative-first. Its much easier to resolve the personal situations if the players have tools to interact with them. From memory of 4e, it isn't the suggested play.

The player of the fighter - depending somewhat on build - probably leverages more metagame tokens more often (did anyone say "Come and Get It") but has, on the whole, fewer fictional levers. Especially because the fighter is less likely to have access to skills like Arcana and Religion, that tend to provide open-ended fictional levers when compared to skills like Athletics and Endurance.

So maybe wizards still are king in 4e! (Hopefully I'll be getting more experimental data this Sunday.)

And the fighter faces more metagame restrictions since his power recharge mechanic is wholly metagame in origin. The Wizard has a fiction-first recovery of his dailies, but the poor fighter can't understand why his many and varied opponents only ever offer one special move opening each extended rest!

 

[ExploderWizard]

Well, if you want to get right down to it. D&D has no soul.

Every day, countless games of D&D are played without soul. Won't you please help, give generously so that these games can become a useful part of entertainment society.

This has been a public service announcement.

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC - I was cogitating your Human Torch example and I realized something. Both approaches can give the same results and frequently will. For example, in your example, the Fiction First ruling is that the Human Torch goes out if he's doused in water because that speaks to a certain level of verisimilitude. A Mechanics First approach could come up with the same result, although for different reasons - The Human Torch's power's are pretty powerful - flight, including extremely fast flight, nova blast, the ability to turn off his powers, etc - so the water limitation is simply a balancing element to bring it in line with the rest of the Fantastic Four.

Sure....they could come up with the same results if (and only if) the game designer is as or more flexible and clever when designing the game as every player is while playing the game.

I have never seem an example where this is the case. Consequently, I've never seen an example where the results were the same. Or even close to the same.

YMMV, though, depending upon how your experience varies.



RC

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, if you want to get right down to it. D&D has no soul. Why? It's a game. You, Danny, are not a game.

Yes, in the truest sense of the word, you are correct. That doesn't invalidate the quest. Call it what you will, the "Rome," "D&D Experience" or this latest metaphor, "soul," what people are looking for is some kind of meaphysical, unique identifying essence. And we commonly say that such an attribute exists even in nonliving things...

The question is whether D&D has such a thing apart from it's mechanics & fluff.

But if you're talking about the soul or definition of red- or D&D- you're not talking about the periphery, you are talking about it's core. IOW, not where there is a blurring or overlap, but rather where the distinction is clear.

To...amplify...this point, I use another metaphor. Blues is a well established genre of music which has grown to cover a lot of ground, and is one of the genres that helped create rock & roll.

But if I were to ask you to search for the "soul" or "essence" of blues, would you look most carefully at bands like Led Zeppelin, or Stevie Ray Vaughn, or B.B. King, or Leadbelly, or Robert Johnson?

My guess is that, despite the unquestioned blues aspects of all the others, you'd look at Johnson or Leadbelly more than the others. You'd focus on the base, not the artists whose accretions expanded the genre.