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

[Raven Crowking]

I tend to think that the term "D&D" has become so nebulous as to have little meaning outside of brand identity. And this is nothing new....Gary Gygax mentions the same in the 1e DMG, when he suggests that some D&D campaigns are simply not D&D anymore ("Dungeons & Beavers" at CalTech).

At the same time, all editions of D&D (and many other games!) are close enough in feel that I have no problem stealing...er, borrowing....elements from them for my own campaign settings.

The "D&D Experience" may be different things to different people. IMHO, so long as most of those people are having a "D&D Experience" that they are enjoying, it doesn't really matter if/that they are enjoying different things.


RC

 

[Nagol]

I'll admit the only Palladium I've played is TMNT and a brief stint of Rifts, ages ago. TMNT didn't have classes, so, I'm not entirely sure about Palladium.

The fact that you have to rebuild Hero to emulate D&D doesn't really negate my point. If you've rebuilt Hero to the point where it's simulating D&D, is it really all that different of a game? Of course, the base Hero system doesn't presume that. So, basically, you're playing D&D using a different system. At that point, why not just use D&D?

The same thing goes for GURPS. If you've modded the game to the point where you're essentially playing D&D, just with a different system, are you still playing the base system anymore?

IOW, why bring up homebrewing various systems to emulate D&D? If someone goes through Hero, to the point where they've entirely recreated every single power, SLA and whatnot from D&D, I'd say they've bloody well EARNED the right to call themselves D&D players.

But, it's sort of pointless to talk about how you can play D&D with other systems. We can talk about homebrews all you like, but, the basic point still remains. HERO is not D&D because it's not a level based fantasy system. GURPS is not a level based fantasy system. Palladium is mostly point buy AFAIK, so, again, it's not exactly D&D either, although it's pretty close.

Then again, most Palladium players would not call themselves D&D players. Because they are deliberately choosing to play Palladium and not D&D.

Hero doesn't need modding to build D&D; it just needs character growth constraints. Almost all Hero campaigns have some form of character growth constraints. This set is just tedious to build and ends up emulating the D&D genre.

That said, Palladium, Chivalry and Sorcery, Fantasy Wargaming, and Tunnels and Trolls are all examples of RP games with fantasy genre, levels, focus on combat, various forms of magic and divine action, and to some extent have characters advance through killing things and taking their stuff.

There's a whole bunch more games like them as well and they're not D&D either.

 

[shadzar]

I'm curious, because I don't actually know, does Blizzard describe their own game as a roleplaying game? I know that you see MMORPG floated around on chat boards loads of time, but, is that simply shorthand? After all, CRPG is a term used to describe a particular genre of computer game that borrows heavily from role playing games, but, it's a pretty long stretch to call a lot of them role playing games.

If the previous reply is not enough with using the world roleplaying by the company, then think of it like this from the actual front page of the WoW site...

Blizzard Entertainment: World of Warcraft

Descend into the World of Warcraft and join thousands of mighty heroes in an online world of myth, magic, and limitless adventure.

Role-playing refers to the changing of one's behaviour to assume a role, either unconsciously to fill a social role, or consciously to act out an adopted role. While the Oxford English Dictionary defines role-playing as "the changing of one's behaviour to fulfill a social role",[1] the term is used more loosely in four senses:

* To refer to the playing of roles generally such as in a theatre, or educational setting;
* To refer to taking a role of an existing character or person and acting it out with a partner taking someone else's role, often involving different genres of practice;
* To refer to a wide range of games including computer role-playing games, play-by-mail games and more;
* To refer specifically to role-playing games

Seeing you assume the "role" of one adventuring in WoW, then by the definition of role playing, Blizzard and others don't NEED to say what kind of game it is, as any time you play a game and assume the 1st person control of a character in that game, you are pretty much playing that role, aka role playing the character.

This is where MMORPG comes from, that one is assuming the role of a character in the game, as opposed to armchair general that doesn't actually participate in the game, or just being an onlooker or something else outside of assuming the role of one or more of the characters.

Ergo: the original used reference of role playing to be explained as D&D is similar to cowboys and indians, or cops and robbers, etc.

 

[MrGrenadine]

WoW isn't an RPG because there's no presumption of R. I don't know how to put it more simply than that. Nothing in the game actually presumes that you are going to play your character.

The entire 4e DMG revolves around the presumption of adopting a role. Every bit of advice flows from that basic assumption.

But nothing in 4e presumes RP, either, and folks DO adopt roles in WoW, as described by race and class. Yes, RP would imply much more--personality, emotion, character, etc.--but there are folks who play D&D who add nothing of the sort, and are content to have race and class describe the character they play.

The fact that a WoW player chooses a character, and controls the character through multiple, ongoing adventures, gaining in power and equipment and (hopefully) creating cooperative and strong relationships with other characters--this qualifies WoW as and RPG, IMO.

But it doesn't feel like D&D to me. <Dodges thrown tomato.>

Page 42 examples come from the idea that the player is making role play decisions, not based on what is the most tactically advantageous, but on what would make a good story.

My experience with 4e is that most, if not all, decisions are based on whats tactically advantageous. Since monster math scales with character level, if you don't make tactically advantageous choices throughout, a character will be behind the power curve, leaving the player missing in combat or failing in skill challenges WAY more often than 50%.

But, I play a Dragonborn warlord and suddenly it's not D&D anymore? Really?

I haven't seen anyone claim that 4e doesn't feel like D&D to them because of Dragonborn and Warlords. For myself, the reason it doesn't feel like D&D to me has more to do with the way the power-centric rules limit my Dragonborn Warlord's choices in and out of combat. Also, square fireballs.

But thats just my humble opinion of how the game plays. It feels really different, and not always in a good way. But let me also say that I play in a weekly 4e campaign, with a terrific DM and a group of great folks, that is an absolute blast.

The "feel" thing is more related to my preferences, and has little or nothing to do with my enjoyment while I'm playing.

And in relation to the OP--that translates as the opinion that certain paths to Rome don't have the right feel for me, (I like to see more orchards on the way, or whatever). Though I certainly don't mean to disparage anyone for taking the rockier or coastal paths.

 

[Stoat]

My wife doesn't like shrimp. I think shrimp are delicious. I'm a little embarrassed how long it took before I quit bugging her to keep trying shrimp. But hey, they're delicious!

 

[Mercurius]

Tough crowd.

Speaking as a mostly-outside observer, someone who plays any version of D&D very rarely and who missed two complete editions of the game (2e and 4e), I wonder why the original post is in any way controversial. My impression is that D&D is a collection of elements which produce some fundamentally comparable experiences, and that some other games may or may not produce those same experiences depending on how they are played.

Evidently I gave you XP too recently to give it again, but thanks for this. I agree 100%.

 

[Mercurius]

As with other aspects of the Shadow, certain personalities like to revisit their pain with a perverse, masochistic joy; even when doing so provides no psychological benefit.

The rationale which a neurotic invokes in this case is usually one of exploration; in fact, the desire is for the conflict (whether personal or interpersonal) to continue, as it lends meaning and purpose to the patient's life.

The horse is dead.

Really.

Very.

Dead.

Ah, I see you've taken Psych 101. Nothing like a bit of unasked for psychotherapy in the mornin', thanks! I'm wondering why this sort of thing is tolerated on EN World - it is actually a subtle form of aggression (you pretty much called me a neurotic; hey, guilty as charged!).

But rather than psychoanalyze me (whom you know nothing about, except for a couple posts on EN World in which you seem to think are someone representative of who I am), why not ask yourself why one would feel the need to put others into psychological categories, especially when you don't know said others? Or did they not talk about that in Psych 101? Maybe it was 201?

I think Danny's point is that there is no such form. Putting to one side the various issues with Platonic Forms, I think it's uncontroversial to say that a group of things cannot fall under a given Form unless they all resemble one another in a greater number of salient respects than any of them resembles anything else. This is what makes them all particular instances of the one Form.

It came to me after reading this that we're looking at a "Platonic Form" in a slightly different way. First of all, remember that a Platonic form is an ideal, not an actual, particular version of that ideal. But because it is an ideal, it is inherently flexible or at least without a solid, concrete, and narrow definition. Perhaps the word "archetype" is more useful for what I'm getting at.

Now we could say that if I want to be more accurate with my analogy, what I mean by "D&D Experience" is both the ideal itself and a particular (personal) version - both at once. The ideal is the idea or archetype of D&D itself; the particular is one's own individual version. There is one idea of D&D but infinite possible particular expressions. I am reminded of Hindu ontology in which the soul "drop" (Atman) is both within/part of the "ocean" of spirit (Brahman) and synonymous with the ocean itself. To put it another way, one cannot really meaningfully talk about D&D outside of one's own experience. Thus one could say that D&D is what a D&D player says it is, as long as when we make such statements as "4E is not D&D to me" what we are really saying is not that 4E is not D&D, but that 4E is not synonymous with one's own definition and experience of D&D.

In other words, D&D is both my own personal definition and the sum total definitions of everyone who has ever thought of it. Or maybe I'm too much of a 21st century Wikipedia/Urban Dictionary approach to epistemology?

Now it may be that we simply have two different types of thinkers with regards to this issue, those that choose a "big umbrella" approach and those that are more specific and want something more concrete. Speaking for myself, I have a hard time saying that any form of D&D is "not D&D to me" because I just don't think that way. I tend to take a big umbrella approach and feel that "D&D to me" has less to do with the specific edition or version and more the experience that I get, which could theoretically come from just about any rules set. I mean, you could play Savage Worlds with beholders, drow, and fighter/magic-users and it could quite easily feel like D&D.

So in a sense I'm baffled that someone could not take the 4E rules and create a game experience that "feels like D&D," especially considering I think I could easily do so (for me) with anything rules system (or maybe even no rules system at all). It may come down to the fact that some people's experience is more or less tied to the rules system they are playing with than others in terms of feeling, rather than--as in my case--the tropes, themes, and ideas that are used, which are rather flexible and not inherently tied to system. I think rules matter, but not as much (evidently) as someone that says "X-edition doesn't feel like D&D to me."

But as some have said, it depends upon what we mean by "D&D" when we refer to it in the feeling domain. That is why I've been pushing the experiential aspect and why I feel that it is important to keep it at least somewhat nebulous, because that means it is also flexible and customizable to the individual.

That's why, in the end, I'm inclined to agree with Lanefan - if the publisher has put D&D on the cover, then it's D&D, end of story.

That's the easiest way to go about it and I'm personally fine with it.

 

[MrMyth]

Well, I was mostly just being playful, but I honestly don't see where 4e rewards roleplaying in ways that WoW does not.

My group may have done skill challenges wrong, but aren't they basically "pick a skill and apply it"? Rolling high, not roleplaying, being the chief factor? I admit, I may have an incorrect view of skill challenges.

It's a common way to run them, but not the only way, and not really the intent of the skill challenge rules - the method you describe is a byproduct of the risk/reward system, while I think the goal of Skill Challenges is to roleplay a scene first, and give rewards out based on the rolls that naturally occured during it.

Quest rules give rewards for non-combat achievement of goals, sure (that's present in WoW). Do they give rewards for roleplay?

Actually, DMG2 presents guidelines on giving out XP for roleplaying alone. Basically giving you a way, if your players have one combat every few sessions, to still regularly reward xp (beyond the amount given by skill challenges and quest rewards).

It should be noted that the system is not for rewarding 'good' roleplay (given how subjective such a thing is), but for rewarding productive roleplaying. If the party spends an hour overcoming some obstacle (the collapsed tree blocking the path; the debate in the king's court; finding the thief who ran off with the Wand of Wonder and is causing chaos in town; etc)... then, even if no skills were rolled or attacks made, we have some guidelines for how much xp those accomplishments are worth.

The final note, of course, is that this is an optional system. Asking whether 4E 'rewards roleplaying' is honestly a meaningless question - the reward for roleplaying, in general, is the act itself. It is an approach you are taking to the game and a way to enjoy it, and being able to play the game in that fashion is not part of the journey, it is the goal.

Roleplaying will almost certainly result in both rewards and predicaments, depending on what the players do and how the DM responds. That's the nature of the game. 4E doesn't 'reward' roleplaying in the sense that it doesn't offer artificial incentives to steer people towards a certain style of roleplaying - what it instead does is offer tools for the DM to make roleplaying a smooth and engaging part of the session.

Those tools include both the skill challenge system (albeit in concept more than execution), as well as such guidelines as the DMG2 XP system to allow a group that is heavily focused on roleplaying to still feel the boons of character advancement. Along with simply the advice in the books themselves, and various other tips and tricks featured, especially in DMG2.

 

[shadzar]

Now it may be that we simply have two different types of thinkers with regards to this issue, those that choose a "big umbrella" approach and those that are more specific and want something more concrete. Speaking for myself, I have a hard time saying that any form of D&D is "not D&D to me" because I just don't think that way. I tend to take a big umbrella approach and feel that "D&D to me" has less to do with the specific edition or version and more the experience that I get, which could theoretically come from just about any rules set. I mean, you could play Savage Worlds with beholders, drow, and fighter/magic-users and it could quite easily feel like D&D.

So in a sense I'm baffled that someone could not take the 4E rules and create a game experience that "feels like D&D," especially considering I think I could easily do so (for me) with anything rules system (or maybe even no rules system at all). It may come down to the fact that some people's experience is more or less tied to the rules system they are playing with than others in terms of feeling, rather than--as in my case--the tropes, themes, and ideas that are used, which are rather flexible and not inherently tied to system. I think rules matter, but not as much (evidently) as someone that says "X-edition doesn't feel like D&D to me."

This is where I was saying the Rome burned. The fact that there are more than one way to think about it.

Your approach to turn anything into D&D to get that same experience, and others wanting the specific non generic which is limited to products with the name D&D on it, are the only ones capable of giving the D&D experience. Then there is the middle ground from those two opposites.

Rome is never reached because the road DO lead there, but are not actually connected and instead connect to a circular path outside of Rome. You actually have to leave the road to get to Rome once you are in reach of it. That actually works better for your initial premise as the roads taken get you to the same "feel for you" and generic contentedness with being in Rome, but aren't directly connected to any entrance or exit of Rome.

Are we each happy with our own D&D experience? Of course, but that happiness cannot equate to Rome as we never reach the same place, were are always circling it and looking at it form outside the city itself from our angle of happiness derived from each persons "D&D experience".

I can agree all products labeled D&D on them are a D&D product. I cannot agree that all of said products are "D&D to me", due to that D&D experience, the form of happiness that each would or would not bring.

So even saying that happiness of the D&D experience IS Rome, when you do reach it in your example, you cannot ignore the fact that people ARE arriving on different roads. Someone is going to question why everyone didn't take the same road. Then the reasons for that will come into play.

Whether one can take 4e, RoleMAster, RuneQuest, WoW, Lord of the Rings, Willow, etc and reach the "feel of D&D" isn't the problem, but that why should they have to do they work to do so. Why doesn't all things D&D have the same feel.

That is simply because each new iteration of D&D strove to change the feel.

miniatures to imagination
hexes to squares
combat to roleplaying/simulation
DM control to player agency
staggered levels to same level progression
roleplaying/simulation to combat

The very fact that D&D is self diluting is why this happens. In each case of trying to remove dilution, more dilution has been caused as you cannot deny past instances.

ONLY under the first D&D game could all agree what feels like D&D, but after a second version was made, the consensus was forever lost.

 

[BryonD]

That's the easiest way to go about it and I'm personally fine with it.

If this is established as the ground rules for a conversation, it is certainly completely viable.

But isn't it entirely useless for effective communication regarding what actually happens during play?

And the most often tossed about phrase is "feels like", which is fundamentally different than an answer that boils down to nothing more than a sterile legal finding of fact.