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

[pemerton]

Eyebeams, thanks for the reply.

All of those *are* models, however, and all of them say something about the internal logic of the worlds they create

<snip>

HeroQuest is pretty straightforward, as one could advance an argument that Glorantha is pretty effectively simulated by the rules, as gods and the assumption of mythic roles is embedded into Glorantha's world logic. In the case of Nicotine Girls, we learn about the dynamics of a very constrained world based on what a middle class man believes about poor women.

I agree that the resolution mechanics point you towards the narrative or thematic logics of the worlds that these games create. But I still want to assert that they don't do this by modelling the ingame physics of those worlds. Without some sort of contrast like this, I don't know how to capture the difference between (for example) RuneQuest and HeroQuest.

(Note: This kind of analysis isn't going to make you any friends.)

Clearly. Though I think it is interesting to see a RPG try to make class a focus of the game.

In Mike Mearls' conception of D&D, this force is rendered subtly around what he at one time called D&D's "core story" and which has now developed into the notion of an "essence" -- the idea that there is a set thing D&D is about.

I didn't know Mearls had said this. I've posted frequently that 4e seems designed to produce a game that "tells the story of D&D" - the effect of scaling across character build and encounter design, combined with the Monster Manuals as written, is to give a game that starts with goblins and kobolds and proceeds via drow and mind flayers to conclude with Lolth and Orcus. And the epic level demigods who confront Lolth and Orcus won't be worrying about mundane locks or 10' deep pits.

I think that the more you try to depart from this, the more you'll bump into the limits of the system. (I don't know if this counts as advocating obedience. I do think it's a realistic observation.)

Players pursue various impulses that change from game to game and moment to moment, and frequently contradict each other.

There's no real fix here. We just need to accept that there are limits to how satisfying a game design can be, and take responsibility for our relationship with the game. The best game designers can do is explain what they want to do, and take into account the reality that people will want to do something different.

This is all true. I think it's especially true of a (relatively) mass-market game like D&D that people will try and to very different things with it. But I'm not sure what you think designers should be doing to take account of that reality (eg produce variant subsystems?; produce modules and worlds that can support varying playstyles?)

 

[BryonD]

No. At most, they might realise that no character does ever jump more than three times per day. You would need to know a lot more than that to actually make an inference to the physics of the world - assuming that wondering about the physics of the world was even a salient issue! - which for those playing a non-exploration based game it probably is not!

You are just wrong here. As I readily admit, it may take a great deal of exposure for a reader to catch on to the pattern, but given a large enough exposure it WOULD emerge.

But that misses the point I was making. The point is, the relevant audience is the players at the table. And they ALREADY know. So regardless of your argument about how easily you think a reader would catch on. The players at the table have caught on before play begins.

Here is somf of what the HeroQuest 2nd ed rulebook has to say about the relationship between physics of the gameworld and the action resolution mechanics:

BLAH BLAH BLAH

First, unless Heroquest is more popular than 4E and I just missed it, it is not meaningful to bring it up. I don't dispute that games on this end of the spectrum exist. Hell, I'm actively describing 4E that way. Are you trying to bring me around to understanding that 4E exists? Because, if you are, congratulations, you win.

My point is not that they don't exist, but that they are demonstrably different
in way with more significance than you seem willing to accept. And the sense that "this ain't Rome" comes from those significant differences. (And variations in overall popularity does as well.) But I certainly could not and would not argue these points if I didn't think they existed. I'm afraid you wasted a chunk of typing on a wild goose chase.

But, as a second point, you have still described a mathematical model.
Certainly it is very different than 3E, but we already agree on that.
I'm not familiar with the system, all I have to go by is what you posted. But you have starting point A and an ending point Z and a lot of B, C, D,... in between.

Certainly 3E takes the approach of calculating B1, B2, B3,... and then C1, C2, C3,... and on and on until Z is reached.
As you describe this system it appears to be here is A, now we directly calculate Z. Everything else in between is interprelated at the player's discretion. So, there is little to no math on THAT part. But it is still a mathematical model. It is just way far out on the approximations and rules of thumb end of the spectrum.


Interestingly, this sounds far better to me than 4E or your three jump cards systems because it seems to strongly describe a system in which the mechanics are submissive to the narrative.

Say a character needs to jump over a ten foot chasm. In both HeroQuest, as I understand it from the above, and in 3E you simply look at the challenge and at the nature of the jumper. It sounds like the nature of the jumper is more qualitative in HeroQuest, but it is still his nature that counts.

In the three jump cards system the first deciding factor is, does he have any jump cards left.

4E, in this particular example, is not too bad. Certainly the process looks nearly exactly like 3E: D20 + bonus, compare to target. But in 4E all 12th level characters, regardless of concept, with have a "math works" +6 bonus, and all 22nd level characters, regardless of concept have an arbitrary +11 "math works" bonus. So instead of looking at the narrative nature of the character, 4E looks at the mechanics demands. So it is less bad than jump cards, but still falls short of good.

 

[billd91]

Bill91, thanks for a thoughtful response.

I'm assuming that - as eyebeams suggested upthread - when we're talking about playing "jump cards" we're not talking about a PC jumping over a dog turd so as to keep his boots clean walking down the city street. I assume that we're talking about using a jump to resolve some dramatic situation in the game.

Regardless of whether it's to resolve a dramatic situation, if the jump is something the character should be reasonably capable of on any routine jump attempt, I would consider an artificial limit on his jumping to be reason to throw the game system in the recycle bin. I would accept an arbitrary limit only for going above and beyond the call with the character's capability. Whether a jump happens to resolve some dramatic situation or not seems immaterial to me. What I'm concerned with is results beyond the character's reasonable capabilities.

 

[Krensky]

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.

Actually there is. 580 - 620 nanometers is orange. So when light's wavelength shortens from 621 nm to 620 nm, it turns from red to orange.

But, instead of color, how about forest? At what point do you have a forest. We all know what a forest looks like and I imagine we've all been in a forest at least once in our lives.

Now, define forest in such a way that it excludes all other groups of trees.

It's done all the time. Ask the USGS or other country's equivalents. Now, they all have differeing definitions regarding density, size, cover, tree height, etc, but the definitions are all clear.

Even using your example, it would be virtually impossible to define Danny Alcatraz in such a way that it excludes all other people on the planet.

Honestly? Developing a completely unique definition for a specific individual person is trivial.

 

[pawsplay]

Actually there is. 580 - 620 nanometers is orange. So when light's wavelength shortens from 621 nm to 620 nm, it turns from red to orange.

Spectral orange is not the same as visual orange.

 

[Krensky]

Spectral orange is not the same as visual orange.

Yes it is. You can argue what color an object is, until someone pull out a spectrophotometer and gets the wavelength of the light reflecting off the object. If the light reflecting off an object is between 580 - 620 nm, the object is orange. People may still insist it's some other color due to the faults of the human eye or visual cortex or orneriness, but it's still orange.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

it would be virtually impossible to define Danny Alcatraz in such a way that it excludes all other people on the planet.

BWAH-HA-HA-hahahahaaaaaaa!

I'm undefinable!

(Those who have assembled my FBI file might beg to differ...)

Developing a completely unique definition for a specific individual person is trivial.

Yeah, between my fingerprint, my DNA sequence, my medical history and my degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon alone, I'd be surprised if there are more than 2 of me. (No, I don't have any implants- OF ANY KIND- that are traceable.)

Then there are all the other little (and big) things that make me me.

 

[pawsplay]

Yes it is. You can argue what color an object is, until someone pull out a spectrophotometer and gets the wavelength of the light reflecting off the object. If the light reflecting off an object is between 580 - 620 nm, the object is orange. People may still insist it's some other color due to the faults of the human eye or visual cortex or orneriness, but it's still orange.

Wikipedia says you're wrooooong....

The color of an object depends on both the physics of the object in its environment and the characteristics of the perceiving eye and brain.

Just in case you're interested in making a rebuttal, I should warn you that I was a teaching assistant in a class on human perception for a semester.

Also, if the "light reflecting off an object is between 580 - 620 nm," the object is probably the mirror of a laser or something, because most objects scatter across a wide variety of spectra.

 

[LostSoul]

LostSoul, that's fair enough. I guess by metagame mechanics I mean mechanics (i) that aren't purist-for-system simulationist, in the sense that they don't express or model ingame causality, and also (ii) that can't be implemented in actor stance.

Yeah - in other words, rules that explicitly ask the players to step out of role assumption. This can be good, depending on your game's goals, or it can be bad.

I should note that these types of mechanics don't necessarily mean you're no longer advocating for your character.

 

[pemerton]

I should note that these types of mechanics don't necessarily mean you're no longer advocating for your character.

Agreed.